Do evolutionists really understand the complexity of things?

Speedwell · Oct 22, 2016

rjs330 said:
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 develop. 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.

What I'm trying to tell you that each intermediate step between forelimb and wing has to be useful in itself. The genes don't make long term plans. 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.
Evolution does not start out to make a wing from a forelimb, it just takes the next step to make the forelimb more adapted to the particular situation the species finds itself in. The thing can go different ways--in the case of the penguin's ancestral line the forelimb became a wing and then a flipper. Evolution didn't "start out" to make a flipper, any more than it started out to make a wing. But it illustrates an important point: because evolution works by small steps, each one of which must be useful in itself, it may not get to its present state by the most direct pathway, or the one with the fewest number of steps.

And it all can be seen in the fossil record.

Herman Hedning · Oct 23, 2016

-57 said:
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.

Let's break this down.

We'll start with small dinosaurs. They already had feathers, as we can see from the fossils, so that's a given. Some of these dinosaurs have longer and stronger forelimbs than others. This allows them to use their forelimbs to climb trees. This is a huge advantage, since they are now out of the way for most predators. Now there is an evolutionary pressure to be an even better climber with even stronger forelimbs.

Next, the feathers on the forelimbs grow longer and stronger, giving the creature a little lift when jumping between the branches of the trees to catch prey and to avoid other predators. Again, this is a huge advantage that would be strongly selected for. After many steps of mutation and selection, we have creatures that can glide through the air for considerable distances and steer around by tilting and flapping their forelimbs/wings.

Next, a mutation gives some of these proto-birds stronger musculature, allowing them to flap their wings more forcefully. This leads to better flight control and even longer flights. Continue the process of mutation and selection, and we end up with modern birds.

All of these steps are immediately useful to the animal, so there is no waiting around with half a wing until evolution provides full flight.

Impossible?

OldWiseGuy · Oct 23, 2016

SteveB28 said:
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!

So you agree that an outside force is necessary for evolution to occur.

OldWiseGuy · Oct 23, 2016

-57 said:
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.

This is the point of my thread: The utter impossibility of evolution based on the odds. I'd like to see a formula or algorithm for just a simple change. There isn't a chalkboard big enough. The existence of a horse is mysterious enough without the claim it was once a fish.

Speedwell · Oct 23, 2016

OldWiseGuy said:
So you agree that an outside force is necessary for evolution to occur.

Outside of what?

OldWiseGuy · Oct 23, 2016

Speedwell said:
What I'm trying to tell you that each intermediate step between forelimb and wing has to be useful in itself. The genes don't make long term plans. 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.
Evolution does not start out to make a wing from a forelimb, it just takes the next step to make the forelimb more adapted to the particular situation the species finds itself in. The thing can go different ways--in the case of the penguin's ancestral line the forelimb became a wing and then a flipper. Evolution didn't "start out" to make a flipper, any more than it started out to make a wing. But it illustrates an important point: because evolution works by small steps, each one of which must be useful in itself, it may not get to its present state by the most direct pathway, or the one with the fewest number of steps.

And it all can be seen in the fossil record.

Evolution always used the term 'millions of years'. Can you present a more definitive timeline for these changes so we can calculate a timeframe for each individual change? I don't think there has been enough time to accomplish all these changes since the moment "life was struck" in that mysterious 'primordial soup'.

OldWiseGuy · Oct 23, 2016

KTS said:
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.

I was referring to maneuvering, not propelling. See post #332.

Speedwell · Oct 23, 2016

OldWiseGuy said:
This is the point of my thread: The utter impossibility of evolution based on the odds. I'd like to see a formula or algorithm for just a simple change. There isn't a chalkboard big enough. The existence of a horse is mysterious enough without the claim it was once a fish.

Here is a link which provides an introduction to some of the mathematical techniques used to characterize the process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markov_chain

Here is a link which gives a general overview of evolutionary genetics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_genetics

I know, it's only Wikipedia and so greatly oversimplified for the layman but their references are good and you can follow those links for greater depth.

OldWiseGuy · Oct 23, 2016

Speedwell said:
Outside of what?

Outside of the organism.

OldWiseGuy · Oct 23, 2016

Speedwell said:
Here is a link which provides an introduction to some of the mathematical techniques used to characterize the process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markov_chain

Here is a link which gives a general overview of evolutionary genetics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_genetics

I know, it's only Wikipedia and so greatly oversimplified for the layman but their references are good and you can follow those links for greater depth.

It says that time sequences cannot be calculated.

"Note that there is no definitive agreement in the literature on the use of some of the terms that signify special cases of Markov processes. Usually the term "Markov chain" is reserved for a process with a discrete set of times, i.e. a discrete-time Markov chain (DTMC),[3][3] but a few authors use the term "Markov process" to refer to a continuous-time Markov chain (CTMC) without explicit mention.[4][5][6] In addition, there are other extensions of Markov processes that are referred to as such but do not necessarily fall within any of these four categories (see Markov model). Moreover, the time index need not necessarily be real-valued; like with the state space, there are conceivable processes that move through index sets with other mathematical constructs. Notice that the general state space continuous-time Markov chain is general to such a degree that it has no designated term."

Speedwell · Oct 23, 2016

OldWiseGuy said:
It says that time sequences cannot be calculated.

"Note that there is no definitive agreement in the literature on the use of some of the terms that signify special cases of Markov processes. Usually the term "Markov chain" is reserved for a process with a discrete set of times, i.e. a discrete-time Markov chain (DTMC),[3][3] but a few authors use the term "Markov process" to refer to a continuous-time Markov chain (CTMC) without explicit mention.[4][5][6] In addition, there are other extensions of Markov processes that are referred to as such but do not necessarily fall within any of these four categories (see Markov model). Moreover, the time index need not necessarily be real-valued; like with the state space, there are conceivable processes that move through index sets with other mathematical constructs. Notice that the general state space continuous-time Markov chain is general to such a degree that it has no designated term."

Right. Now look at the other link I gave you, and then this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Models_of_DNA_evolution

OldWiseGuy · Oct 23, 2016

Speedwell said:
Right. Now look at the other link I gave you, and then this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Models_of_DNA_evolution

Can't you just tell me how long it takes for an arm to change into a wing, ballpark figure?

Speedwell · Oct 23, 2016

OldWiseGuy said:
Can't you just tell me how long it takes for an arm to change into a wing, ballpark figure?

Personally I don't know. It's in the fossil record--you can look it up as well as I could.
But my point in posting those articles was to try and show you that there is a large and well organized body of scholarship behind all of this which crosses a number of disciplinary lines. You come in here with the notion that evolution is nothing but wicked, ad hoc attempt to deny the Bible, you don't really understand the mechanism by which evolution is said to work and expect your "feeling" that the odds are against it to blow the whole thing out of the water. It's just not enough.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Oct 23, 2016

OldWiseGuy said:
Can't you just tell me how long it takes for an arm to change into a wing, ballpark figure?

It depends on the point at which you decide the appendage is no longer an arm and the point at which you decide it is now a wing. But it took millions of years. Maybe this site (from a simple Google search) will give you some idea (note the caveats at the start).

SteveB28 · Oct 23, 2016

OldWiseGuy said:
So you agree that an outside force is necessary for evolution to occur.

Where in my example do you see an "outside force" (whatever that may be)? The only forces involved are heritable variation, combined with an environmental 'filtering system'.

rjs330 · Oct 23, 2016

Herman Hedning said:
Let's break this down.

We'll start with small dinosaurs. They already had feathers, as we can see from the fossils, so that's a given. Some of these dinosaurs have longer and stronger forelimbs than others. This allows them to use their forelimbs to climb trees. This is a huge advantage, since they are now out of the way for most predators. Now there is an evolutionary pressure to be an even better climber with even stronger forelimbs.

Next, the feathers on the forelimbs grow longer and stronger, giving the creature a little lift when jumping between the branches of the trees to catch prey and to avoid other predators. Again, this is a huge advantage that would be strongly selected for. After many steps of mutation and selection, we have creatures that can glide through the air for considerable distances and steer around by tilting and flapping their forelimbs/wings.

Next, a mutation gives some of these proto-birds stronger musculature, allowing them to flap their wings more forcefully. This leads to better flight control and even longer flights. Continue the process of mutation and selection, and we end up with modern birds.

All of these steps are immediately useful to the animal, so there is no waiting around with half a wing until evolution provides full flight.

Impossible?

Yes impossible. Its blind faith to believe such. You give evolutionary process no intelligence and yet somehow it has intelligent process to create such a drastic change all the while claiming each step is beneficial. Its just all so incredulous.

rjs330 · Oct 23, 2016

Speedwell said:
What I'm trying to tell you that each intermediate step between forelimb and wing has to be useful in itself. The genes don't make long term plans. 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.
Evolution does not start out to make a wing from a forelimb, it just takes the next step to make the forelimb more adapted to the particular situation the species finds itself in. The thing can go different ways--in the case of the penguin's ancestral line the forelimb became a wing and then a flipper. Evolution didn't "start out" to make a flipper, any more than it started out to make a wing. But it illustrates an important point: because evolution works by small steps, each one of which must be useful in itself, it may not get to its present state by the most direct pathway, or the one with the fewest number of steps.

And it all can be seen in the fossil record.

It's not seen in the fossil record as we have no creature that shows the step by step process in one creature. The claim that it is beneficial in some fashion in order for the process to continue I would like to know exactly what the step by step process was along with the benefits of that that step are. We are just talking about a wing here. The complexity of not just developing wings but every single major change of creatures from simple to complex from a cell to a eye or wing or everything that it became eventually is insane. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. And since we have no ability to study that complex of a process or reproduce it under the current environment much less under the environment of the time it just speaks volumes of the impossibilities. If I am a believer in God then I have two choices on the matter. Either God created everything as stated in the bible fully formed as the creature he wanted or I believe that God created a thing with a specific design to eventually evolve into everything that existed. I believe it is possible for God to have done that. With God ALL things are possible. But it was not chance it was pure unadulterated design that God wanted to do it that way to create all things as he wanted them to,be by design.

But I personally can find zero biblical evidence for such a thought. And despite the claims of men I find really no convincing evidence that God created by evolution.

Herman Hedning · Oct 23, 2016

Deleted.

-57 · Oct 23, 2016

OldWiseGuy said:
This is the point of my thread: The utter impossibility of evolution based on the odds. I'd like to see a formula or algorithm for just a simple change. There isn't a chalkboard big enough. The existence of a horse is mysterious enough without the claim it was once a fish.

I've been asking the evo's to explain how it's possible for decades...and not one has been able to answer. Not one.

Kylie · Oct 23, 2016

rjs330 said:
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.

Okay, let's use your example of wings.

What you are basically asking is, "What use is half a wing?"

And the answer is "lots."

There are many animals today that have what we would call "half a wing." Flying possums called sugar gliders live here in Australia. They leap from tree to tree, using a flap of skin that stretches between the front and back legs to give them control over their descent, allowing them to control where they go, as well as allowing them to reduce their speed so they don't splat into trees or the ground.

What they have is by no means a wing. Now, it could develop into a wing. If their arm becomes longer, and they develop stronger arm muscles, they may develop powered flight. Or maybe not their arm, but if their fingers get longer, they can spread the membrane out over their hands. This is exactly what happened with bats. So, the sugar gliders have "half a wing," and yet it serves them quite well.

Half a wing is also good for other things. It can be used as a display, or for cooling. There are animals alive today that use wings for these purposes.

Do evolutionists really understand the complexity of things?

Well-Known Member

Hiking is fun

Wake me when it's soup.

Wake me when it's soup.

Well-Known Member

Wake me when it's soup.

Wake me when it's soup.

Well-Known Member

Wake me when it's soup.

Wake me when it's soup.

Well-Known Member

Wake me when it's soup.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Hiking is fun

Well-Known Member

Defeater of Illogic

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency