Do evolutionists really understand the complexity of things?

Kylie · Oct 23, 2016

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

You said specifically that the pectorals fins served the same function as the penguin's wings. See post 362. You even pointed out the similarity to wings. And yet they are used in a manner very different to a penguin's wings.

What you are saying is like claiming that a ship's rudder serves the same purpose as a tank's caterpillar treads, because they can be used for steering. But they do so in a completely different way, and it ignores the fact that a tank's treads are primarily for locomotion.

OldWiseGuy · Oct 23, 2016

KTS said:
You said specifically that the pectorals fins served the same function as the penguin's wings. See post 362. You even pointed out the similarity to wings. And yet they are used in a manner very different to a penguin's wings.

What you are saying is like claiming that a ship's rudder serves the same purpose as a tank's caterpillar treads, because they can be used for steering. But they do so in a completely different way, and it ignores the fact that a tank's treads are primarily for locomotion.

They serve the same function regarding maneuverability.

Kylie · Oct 23, 2016

OldWiseGuy said:
They serve the same function regarding maneuverability.

Except maneuvering forwards.

And since a shark's fins need only change its attitude in the water, and a penguin's wings need to change attitude AS WELL AS provide forward movement, then the penguin's wings are necessarily going to be in some way different to a shark's fins. And as such, they will carry out the attitude adjustment in a different way.

Or perhaps you can show me a shark fin with a range of movement as wide as that of a penguin wing?

OldWiseGuy · Oct 24, 2016

KTS said:
Except maneuvering forwards.

And since a shark's fins need only change its attitude in the water, and a penguin's wings need to change attitude AS WELL AS provide forward movement, then the penguin's wings are necessarily going to be in some way different to a shark's fins. And as such, they will carry out the attitude adjustment in a different way.

Or perhaps you can show me a shark fin with a range of movement as wide as that of a penguin wing?

I think you are splitting hairs unnecessarily.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Oct 24, 2016

OldWiseGuy said:
I think you are splitting hairs unnecessarily.

No, she is not.
A shark uses is pectoral fins for maneuvering and it's tail for locomotion.
A penguin uses it's wings for maneuvering AND locomotion.
They aren't the same thing. You're just refusing to admit it.

OldWiseGuy · Oct 24, 2016

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
No, she is not.
A shark uses is pectoral fins for maneuvering and it's tail for locomotion.
A penguin uses it's wings for maneuvering AND locomotion.
They aren't the same thing. You're just refusing to admit it.

Of course they're not the same thing, but they have a maneuvering function in common. That's all I'm saying.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Oct 24, 2016

OldWiseGuy said:
Of course they're not the same thing, but they have a maneuvering function in common. That's all I'm saying.

Yes, I know that's what you're saying but you are also ignoring what you are being told:
A shark ONLY uses it's pectoral fins for maneuvering while a penguin uses it's wings for maneuvering AND locomotion.
Do you understand this difference?

Kylie · Oct 25, 2016

OldWiseGuy said:
I think you are splitting hairs unnecessarily.

Actually, it is quite necessary, I think.

Kylie · Oct 25, 2016

OldWiseGuy said:
Of course they're not the same thing, but they have a maneuvering function in common. That's all I'm saying.

By this logic, the ailerons on a plane are the same as the front wheels of my care and the reins when you go horse riding.

OldWiseGuy · Oct 25, 2016

KTS said:
By this logic, the ailerons on a plane are the same as the front wheels of my care and the reins when you go horse riding.

Yes. All three have at least one function in common, among several.

OldWiseGuy · Oct 25, 2016

KTS said:
Actually, it is quite necessary, I think.

How far are you willing to go with hair splitting, speaking of the OP?

Warden_of_the_Storm · Oct 25, 2016

OldWiseGuy said:
How far are you willing to go with hair splitting, speaking of the OP?

How about you actually address the questions asked of you, such as mine here:
"Yes, I know that's what you're saying but you are also ignoring what you are being told:
A shark ONLY uses it's pectoral fins for maneuvering while a penguin uses it's wings for maneuvering AND locomotion.
Do you understand this difference?"

OldWiseGuy · Oct 25, 2016

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
How about you actually address the questions asked of you, such as mine here:
"Yes, I know that's what you're saying but you are also ignoring what you are being told:
A shark ONLY uses it's pectoral fins for maneuvering while a penguin uses it's wings for maneuvering AND locomotion.
Do you understand this difference?"

Sure, and the similarity.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Oct 25, 2016

OldWiseGuy said:
Sure, and the similarity.

But the pectoral fins of a shark are ONLY for maneuvering while the wings of a penguin are for maneuvering AND propulsion. Two completely different things. That's completely ignoring the bone structure and makeup of the fins versus the wings.

The similarities are minor while the differences are major.

TagliatelliMonster · Oct 25, 2016

OldWiseGuy said:
What are the odds that flower and moth 'co-evolved'.

As it turns out, 1 in 1.

eyes4grandpa · Oct 25, 2016

What gets me are the people that simply say..."What about the Big Bang?"
They seem to always leave out the word "theory" from that statement. I tend to remind them about that. I also ask them a question myself. Who do you think caused it?
Remember God's timetable is quite different from ours.
No... This is not a complicated study that science lights to see and to perform. However, it covers and answers that particular statement. Faith... You have to have faith.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Oct 25, 2016

eyes4grandpa said:
What gets me are the people that simply say..."What about the Big Bang?"
They seem to always leave out the word "theory" from that statement. I tend to remind them about that. I also ask them a question myself. Who do you think caused it?
Remember God's timetable is quite different from ours.
No... This is not a complicated study that science lights to see and to perform. However, it covers and answers that particular statement. Faith... You have to have faith.

And what does this have to do with evolution? The Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution are two completely different things.

TagliatelliMonster · Oct 25, 2016

rjs330 said:
Yes but why do specific? What made the genes decide that they needed to evolve?

"decision making" is not part of this process.

Things mutate at random and that either has a bad, neutral or positive result to the phenotype. These changes accumulate. Selection pressures will push things in a certain direction.

It's inevitable.

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?

Again, there is no "decision making" in this process. There is no "thinking" or "projection" or "intent" or "purpose". This is not like chess where things happen today "so that it works in such and such way a 1000 generations in the future".

It simply doesn't work like that.
Changes are always about the generation they happen in and the immediate advantage they give the individuals they happen in. If it makes them more succesfull then their peers, they'll spread those successfull genes more then their peers. Until eventually the entire population will have those genes. And so it continues, generation after generation.

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?

They wouldn't.

If the creature started to evolve on purpose

There is no such thing as "evolving on purpose". That makes zero sense.

and the process took so long how would the genes know it was going to work?

They wouldn't. Evolution is a blind process with no regard for future generations. It's always just about the here and now.

Long term change is inevitable due to the inheritable nature of DNA, which accumulates micro changes over generations.

an inch +an inch+an inch +..........+ an inch = many many miles.

And what gave the genes the necessary knowledge to recognize the change?

Genes have no knowledge. They are just molecules that can and will mutate.
And these mutations can have effects on fitness. Selection then filters based on fitness. Good genes will live to see another day. Bad genes will die.

All this points to a design.

Actually, all this points to incredible ignorance and misunderstanding about what evolution is all about and how it works.

AV1611VET · Oct 25, 2016

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
The Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution are two completely different things.

And I'm Genghis Khan.

Ever heard of cosmic evolution?

Warden_of_the_Storm · Oct 25, 2016

AV1611VET said:
And I'm Genghis Khan.

Ever heard of cosmic evolution?

I have. They aren't the same thing.

Do evolutionists really understand the complexity of things?

Defeater of Illogic

Wake me when it's soup.

Defeater of Illogic

Wake me when it's soup.

Well-Known Member

Wake me when it's soup.

Well-Known Member

Defeater of Illogic

Defeater of Illogic

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

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency