evoluition of birds proclaimed absurd by evolutionists

notto · Jun 29, 2005

jlerollin said:
basically from what i have read so far it seems the integument structures are not very well understood and are from limited samples, it is too early to draw strong conclusions about morphology and function and distribution

Can we also assume that it is too early to draw strong conclusions about if flight is intelligently designed? If we can't draw conclusions about morphology and fuction and distribution of feathers and their precursors, it would seem the design conclusion would be premature.

jlerollin · Jun 29, 2005

notto said:
Can we also assume that it is too early to draw strong conclusions about if flight is intelligently designed? If we can't draw conclusions about morphology and fuction and distribution of feathers and their precursors, it would seem the design conclusion would be premature.

have you looked at the samples do you think that there are enough samples or enough detail in the samples to draw strong conclusions.. read the articles they are very cautious
most have only one sample and some dont have that.
it would be premature to say that evolution of the bird feather of archeopetryx is scientific fact,

evolution of the bird feather and wing is not scientific fact. it is scientific theory hypothesis, it is an idea that may be refuted by the futher gathering of evidence and the non appearance of intermediary stages.

most features of animal and plant life appear suddenly and without intermediary ancestor in the fossil record an d many remain unchanged to this day.

right now we can get back to tree down or ground up. if we can agree on a scenario i will explore the other details in the evolutionary projection and see how established they are by scientific fact in the fossil record or otherwise. but really i want to move on to an engineering analysis. and a genetic development analysis. to work out the probability of the changes happening in the timescale irrespective of whether they are found in the fossil record or not.

notto · Jun 29, 2005

jlerollin said:
have you looked at the samples do you think that there are enough samples or enough detail in the samples to draw strong conclusions.. read the articles they are very cautious

Which would verify that it is too early to draw strong conclusion that they were designed. There is still a lot we need to understand about the samples and the precursors to feathers and flight.

We know that there are non 'bird' species with feathers and their precursors. How did they get there? Were they designed? It's really to early to say as you yourself admit. Saying we don't know therefore they are designed isn't really an answer because it explains nothing. Simple God of the Gaps thinking that really isn't scientific.

How did those feathers get on those non-flying or non-bird species? Were they designed there? Why could they not evolve into feathers for flying? What would stop them?

All of these questions are unanswered by the design conclusion and filter.

jlerollin · Jun 29, 2005

the complexity in a single cell cries out it was designed. do you know how complex a single cell is. it is ridiculously complex. probability is it could never have assembled by chance. and random mutations building capacity succesively. we can start a new thread looking at the cell and its supposed evolutionary development but again the intermediaries are scarce.

basically this is what we find
very complicated components that are beyond our ability to conceive how they full work let alone how they could come about by random mutaions.

the whole fossil record from an id position should show complex inexplicable and very limited evidence for intermediate structures.
what is the first multicellular organism said to have evolved?

Tomk80 · Jun 29, 2005

jlerollin said:
the complexity in a single cell cries out it was designed. do you know how complex a single cell is. it is ridiculously complex. probability is it could never have assembled by chance. and random mutations building capacity succesively. we can start a new thread looking at the cell and its supposed evolutionary development but again the intermediaries are scarce.

basically this is what we find
very complicated components that are beyond our ability to conceive how they full work let alone how they could come about by random mutaions.

the whole fossil record from an id position should show complex inexplicable and very limited evidence for intermediate structures.
what is the first multicellular organism said to have evolved?

This has very little to do with the topic of this thread and doesn't give an answer on the questions asked by Notto. Furthermore, you present several logical fallacies here:

1) argument from incredulity: "it is so complex, it had to be designed"
2) strawman fallacy: "it could never have assembled by chance" (guess what, evolution never states that and abiogenesis doesn't either).

notto · Jun 29, 2005

jlerollin said:
the complexity in a single cell cries out it was designed. do you know how complex a single cell is. it is ridiculously complex. probability is it could never have assembled by chance. and random mutations building capacity succesively. we can start a new thread looking at the cell and its supposed evolutionary development but again the intermediaries are scarce.

basically this is what we find
very complicated components that are beyond our ability to conceive how they full work let alone how they could come about by random mutaions.

the whole fossil record from an id position should show complex inexplicable and very limited evidence for intermediate structures.
what is the first multicellular organism said to have evolved?

I thought we were talking about feathers, flight, and their precursors.

Don't bother with any probabilities because your premise is wrong. Evolution and chemistry is the opposite of 'chance'. It is a strawman.

Selection is not random. You seem to be using the same faulty reasoning as you are with feathers. We don't know, therefore designed is not a valid argument. If we can't conceive how something works, it would again show that design is a premature conclusion.

You seem to be asking something of the fossil record that would not be expected. On what basis do you make your statements on what we would expect in the fossil record? Why would we expect the things you are looking for to fossilize? They are soft tissue.

random_guy · Jun 29, 2005

jlerollin said:
the complexity in a single cell cries out it was designed. do you know how complex a single cell is. it is ridiculously complex. probability is it could never have assembled by chance. and random mutations building capacity succesively. we can start a new thread looking at the cell and its supposed evolutionary development but again the intermediaries are scarce.

basically this is what we find
very complicated components that are beyond our ability to conceive how they full work let alone how they could come about by random mutaions.

the whole fossil record from an id position should show complex inexplicable and very limited evidence for intermediate structures.
what is the first multicellular organism said to have evolved?

Could you humor me and show me the probabilities and how they were calculated? After you do that, I'll give you an event with 0% of occurring, occurring.

jlerollin · Jul 1, 2005

Tomk80 said:
This has very little to do with the topic of this thread and doesn't give an answer on the questions asked by Notto. Furthermore, you present several logical fallacies here:

1) argument from incredulity: "it is so complex, it had to be designed"
2) strawman fallacy: "it could never have assembled by chance" (guess what, evolution never states that and abiogenesis doesn't either).

just think for a moment is there anything you would say was designed without actually having seen it being personally built or having been told it was designed and how you would scientifically go about doing it.

or are you saying it is impossible to tell if an event or an object is designed without seeing it be so.

jlerollin · Jul 1, 2005

notto said:
Which would verify that it is too early to draw strong conclusion that they were designed. There is still a lot we need to understand about the samples and the precursors to feathers and flight.

We know that there are non 'bird' species with feathers and their precursors. How did they get there? Were they designed? It's really to early to say as you yourself admit. Saying we don't know therefore they are designed isn't really an answer because it explains nothing. Simple God of the Gaps thinking that really isn't scientific.

How did those feathers get on those non-flying or non-bird species? Were they designed there? Why could they not evolve into feathers for flying? What would stop them?

All of these questions are unanswered by the design conclusion and filter.

i would like to know what samples have feathers that are non flying

m gui is flying i think certainly at least a very advanced glider though with further analysis i am sure they will find it was capable of some form of powered flight. it it has the time to develop feathered wings on both feet and arms i am sure some muscle for flapping could have been formed even in an evolutionary analysis. but i dont beleive this four winged creature is the product of chance and i doubt we will find stages inbetween this and nonflying reptiles. M gui is an advanced aerodynamic machine.

certainly we have some shaft like impressions but exactly what the represent is still out to lunch.

notto · Jul 1, 2005

jlerollin said:
i would like to know what samples have feathers that are non flying

m gui is flying i think certainly at least a very advanced glider though with further analysis i am sure they will find it was capable of some form of powered flight. it it has the time to develop feathered wings on both feet and arms i am sure some muscle for flapping could have been formed even in an evolutionary analysis. but i dont beleive this four winged creature is the product of chance and i doubt we will find stages inbetween this and nonflying reptiles. M gui is an advanced aerodynamic machine.

certainly we have some shaft like impressions but exactly what the represent is still out to lunch.

You keep making my point for me. Thank You!

Concluding design would be premature.

jlerollin · Jul 1, 2005

how would you decide whether something was designed or not.
it seems at the moment you are either intelectually unable to
or you havent given a thought as to how you actually do it.

untill you realise what mechanisms can be used to correctly infer design you will never see any logic in an argument i may present as to infering that somehting is designed.

if you can come up with a metod for infering desing that is practicle that a flying machine didnt trigger that would be fine why dont you try it and let me know.

notto · Jul 1, 2005

jlerollin said:
how would you decide whether something was designed or not.
it seems at the moment you are either intelectually unable to
or you havent given a thought as to how you actually do it.

I've asked repeatedly for you to show me how you apply the design filter to wings, feathers and flight. You have failed to do so. I have never seen this design filter that you refer to applied to any biological entity. All we ever see are (poor) analogies to inanimate objects.

It seems at the moment you are either intellectually unable to apply the design filter or you haven't given a though as to how you actually do it.

Until you can show how you can objectively determine design and can compare something you claim is designed for flight such as eagle wings to something that is not such as ostrich wings and show objectively that one was designed and one was not, all we have is your assertions.

Can you show us how you apply the design filter or not?

jlerollin · Jul 6, 2005

once i am convinced you understand the correct working of the desing filter which does not rely on knowing how something was manufactured. can you return some things that would come out and some things that wouldnt come out as design
give me something that fails at node 1 node something that fails at node 2 and something that gets through as designed past node 3

if you can give me a few examples of each one then i will have confidence i can proceed without needlessly backtracking to the defense and interpretation of what i mean by the design filter.

notto · Jul 6, 2005

jlerollin said:
once i am convinced you understand the correct working of the desing filter which does not rely on knowing how something was manufactured. can you return some things that would come out and some things that wouldnt come out as design
give me something that fails at node 1 node something that fails at node 2 and something that gets through as designed past node 3

if you can give me a few examples of each one then i will have confidence i can proceed without needlessly backtracking to the defense and interpretation of what i mean by the design filter.

I'm not fully convinced that you understand the correct working of the design filter as it applies to biological entities that are under the design algorithm of natural selection.

What does the filter say about feathers, wings, and ostrich wings compared to chicken wings compared to eagle wings. Does it conclude that some of them are designed and others are not? Why or why not?

You claimed earlier in the thread that the design filter says that flight can't evolve. You have yet to show us how you used the design filter to do that. That would be a great way to show those of us who you consider unfamiliar with the design filter that it works and gives us valuable conclusions. If I can only apply the design filter to things that I already know are manufactured or not, of what value is it in the discussion of biological entities and their evolution?

jlerollin · Mar 19, 2006

it is interesting that you mention design process.
I understand the design process as i have engaged in it professionally. You are right i dont understand the design algorithm of evolution as it applies to birds
though at its heart the design algorithm of evolution is
random mutation in the gametes of parent, physical expression in the offspring, greater or lesser productive success of the mutated offspring relative to its peers, = evolutionary adaptation fixed in the population over time.

now it is asserted that this algorithm is powerful enought to account for every single facet of life in the known world today as well as those in yesteryear.

now micro evolution is believed and understood by the scientific community including IDers. so we do know what happens to creatures under this framework. what we see is that mutations are generally harmful to those who have them generally taking away from a very optimal structuring of the creature. we see very limited change nothing of the degree or nature as such physically robust changes as adaptation of arms to wings and transformation from reptiles to feartherd flying creatures. it is you who does not seem to understand the proper constrainst that the design algorithm of evolution actually has been scientificly found to be. no experimentation on reptiles has generated anything like a bird or substantial moves in theat direction the fossil record doesnt help us out and indeed the fossil record has numerous fossils that have actually remained completely oblivious to the supposedly superbodyplan changing powers of the evolutionary design process for the entire history of their life on earth.

I do not believe that the desing algorithm of random mutation and selection of those deformities can generate major reconstruction of body plan on a highly specified construction project such as the formation of a flying animal. nor is there observed or sufficient geologic proof as the debate here shows.

all you have for this particular jump is your hypothesis that isnt even able to generate a step by step hypothetical pathway for the desing algorithm to accomplish this task. you have a conclusion without substantive discussion. birds evolved from dinosaurs ( which dinosaurs and what was the path way) is basicly still open to offers. hardly tight. how many more non explanations for major changes in the animal kingdom are there in evolutionary theory. I bet there are many and i bet by the time i have finished researching them it will look very bad as an explanatory theory.

Mystman · Mar 19, 2006

jlerollin said:
it is interesting that you mention design process.
I understand the design process as i have engaged in it professionally. You are right i dont understand the design algorithm of evolution as it applies to birds
though at its heart the design algorithm of evolution is
random mutation in the gametes of parent, physical expression in the offspring, greater or lesser productive success of the mutated offspring relative to its peers, = evolutionary adaptation fixed in the population over time.

now it is asserted that this algorithm is powerful enought to account for every single facet of life in the known world today as well as those in yesteryear.

now micro evolution is believed and understood by the scientific community including IDers. so we do know what happens to creatures under this framework. what we see is that mutations are generally harmful to those who have them generally taking away from a very optimal structuring of the creature. we see very limited change nothing of the degree or nature as such physically robust changes as adaptation of arms to wings and transformation from reptiles to feartherd flying creatures. it is you who does not seem to understand the proper constrainst that the design algorithm of evolution actually has been scientificly found to be. no experimentation on reptiles has generated anything like a bird or substantial moves in theat direction the fossil record doesnt help us out and indeed the fossil record has numerous fossils that have actually remained completely oblivious to the supposedly superbodyplan changing powers of the evolutionary design process for the entire history of their life on earth.

I do not believe that the desing algorithm of random mutation and selection of those deformities can generate major reconstruction of body plan on a highly specified construction project such as the formation of a flying animal. nor is there observed or sufficient geologic proof as the debate here shows.

all you have for this particular jump is your hypothesis that isnt even able to generate a step by step hypothetical pathway for the desing algorithm to accomplish this task. you have a conclusion without substantive discussion. birds evolved from dinosaurs ( which dinosaurs and what was the path way) is basicly still open to offers. hardly tight. how many more non explanations for major changes in the animal kingdom are there in evolutionary theory. I bet there are many and i bet by the time i have finished researching them it will look very bad as an explanatory theory.

Two things:

1. The shift key. Use it.
2. Why take a 1 year break from a discussion?

jlerollin · Mar 19, 2006

Mystman said:
Two things:

1. The shift key. Use it.
2. Why take a 1 year break from a discussion?

as you can see i was getting nowhere with my initial op basicly they had no ability to formulate a chain of events from the evoloution of dinosaurs to birds not even if they did some research. so basicly i was being led into a different discussion which was fine but i proved my point at that point i was basicly dominating the forum and nobody could really work at the level i was operating at with the topics i was hot on so i got on with other stuff. however notto raised an interesting side debate which i think is worthy of an answer even if it is a little late.

mikeynov · Mar 19, 2006

jlerollin said:
as you can see i was getting nowhere with my initial op basicly they had no ability to formulate a chain of events from the evoloution of dinosaurs to birds not even if they did some research. so basicly i was being led into a different discussion which was fine but i proved my point at that point i was basicly dominating the forum and nobody could really work at the level i was operating at with the topics i was hot on so i got on with other stuff. however notto raised an interesting side debate which i think is worthy of an answer even if it is a little late.

What sort of fantasy land of your own mind do you live in where you can type like a kindergartener with a learning disability and think you've 'dominated' a forum full of people with an actual education?

I <3 creationists.

mikeynov · Mar 19, 2006

jlerollin said:
what we see is that mutations are generally harmful to those who have them generally taking away from a very optimal structuring of the creature.

It's easy to make claims like this when you don't actually cite a single piece of research to justify said claim.

It's even easier to bust you on the spot and point out how absurd this statement is, and how your entire thesis literally breaks when you actually put it to the test:

Warning, this includes information which your mind is attempting to filter out, including beneficial mutations, increases in information, and peer reviewed examples of macroevolution/speciation.

Tomk80 · Mar 19, 2006

jlerollin said:
as you can see i was getting nowhere with my initial op basicly they had no ability to formulate a chain of events from the evoloution of dinosaurs to birds not even if they did some research. so basicly i was being led into a different discussion which was fine but i proved my point at that point i was basicly dominating the forum and nobody could really work at the level i was operating at with the topics i was hot on so i got on with other stuff.

lol. All hail the arrogance of the ignorant. If someone hasn't written an ode to it, someone should have.

however notto raised an interesting side debate which i think is worthy of an answer even if it is a little late.

so, why didn't you answer it?

evoluition of birds proclaimed absurd by evolutionists

bird flight did it

tree gliders to flight

2 footed walker to flight

dont know

ID

Legend

Regular Member

Legend

Regular Member

Titleless

Legend

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Legend

Regular Member

Legend

Regular Member

Legend

Regular Member

Atheist with a Reason

Regular Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Titleless

Similar threads