Evidences for evolution

[seebs]

Originally posted by Corey
A different take:

Your statement already showed that your foundation is shaky. Either God created neutrons or He didn't. How "actively involved"? What were you expecting, a percentage?

If God didn't create neutrons, they DON'T exist. If He did, show me the scriptures.

As it stands, God hasn't revealed to me that He has created neutrons. So, as far as my faith is concern, neutrons don't exist. But if God has revealed to you, enlighten me - show me the scriptures.

Also for those damned subatomic particlists, have YOU ever seen a neutron?

What's interesting about this is that I've met people who see it as an argument against neutrons, and others who see it as an argument against dismissing things that aren't in scripture. The question is, how confident are you that neutrons exist? I consider neutrons to be about as likely to be real as France. I've never seen either, but I've seen a lot of supporting evidence that wouldn't make sense if the theory didn't check out.

 

[Corey]

Uh, seebs, this was a reductio ad absurdum argument using something ThienAn likely doesn't dispute to show him how bankrupt and flawed his original argument was.

 

[ThienAn]

For me, I believe that we're the same from the first day God created us to till the end. I don't believe that humans has evolved from anything because God has made us separated from the other species. We're the only ones that God has given "the breath of life".

"For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 8:38 - 39

The love that God has for us is beyond any other species here on earth. Therefore, we couldn't have evolved from other species.

Just think, if you have 10 things in your house that you love, but that 1 thing you love more that the other 9 things, even if you lose that other 9 things, then there must be something special about that 1 thing.

God created so many species on this earth, and yet He loves us more than all the others species, even more the earth, even the universe, even above anything else that He created. That makes me believe that we are like no other creature. How can I possibly turn around and say that I've evolved from another creature?

You say it's not a question of faith, but I think it has everything to do with faith. But since you claim it has nothing to do with faith, then my argument would end here. Thank you all.

 

[ThienAn]

Originally posted by Corey
Also for those damned subatomic particlists, have YOU ever seen a neutron?

I have. Besides, believing in neutrons or not doesn't change my views on God. But believing in evolution would. So, seeing neutrons or not carries no relevant values.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by ThienAn
For me, I believe that we're the same from the first day God created us to till the end. I don't believe that humans has evolved from anything because God has made us separated from the other species. We're the only ones that God has given "the breath of life".

"For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 8:38 - 39

The love that God has for us is beyond any other species here on earth. Therefore, we couldn't have evolved from other species.

So, if I have a bunch of lumber and tools, and I spend a year crafting a beautiful cabinet, and I care for the cabinet more than I do the lumber, the cabinet *can't* have been made from the same stuff as the lumber?

That's no argument at all. I love my cat more than I love other cats; does that mean they're not related?

Are you saying that God *couldn't* have given the breath of life to an animal? If so, show me the scripture; where does it say that he *can't* do this?

He has made us to be no longer like animals; that doesn't tell me what we were like before he did this.

Just think, if you have 10 things in your house that you love, but that 1 thing you love more that the other 9 things, even if you lose that other 9 things, then there must be something special about that 1 thing.

Yes. For instance, maybe you've put more into it than the others - but that doesn't mean it wasn't the same as them once.

God created so many species on this earth, and yet He loves us more than all the others species, even more the earth, even the universe, even above anything else that He created. That makes me believe that we are like no other creature. How can I possibly turn around and say that I've evolved from another creature?

Your argument here boils down to "If we evolved the same as everything else, how can God love us better". Well, if He *created* us the same as everything else, how can He love us better?

He loves us better because we are the ones he made whole.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by ThienAn
I have.

No you haven't. You've seen something that someone told you was a neutron. Well, you've also seen things that equally qualified people have told you are evolution.

Besides, believing in neutrons or not doesn't change my views on God. But believing in evolution would. So, seeing neutrons or not carries no relevant values.

Why would your beliefs about God be so drastically affected? Surely, He is capable of making people however He wants.

 

[ThienAn]

nevermind. Dead man walking.

 

[Catchup]

Surely, He is capable of making people however He wants.

I agree he is definately capable of whatever he would want to do.

I am so thankful that he chose to make us in his image.


LOVE

 

[Corey]

I have.

Really? What do neutrons look like? Are they blue, black, transparent? What shape are they? Do they make noises? What do they taste like? How do they feel on your hand?

Besides, believing in neutrons or not doesn't change my views on God. But believing in evolution would. So, seeing neutrons or not carries no relevant values.

According to your own argument, it does. If it's not in the Bible it must be false. Because neutrons are not in the Bible and you "believe" in them, your have changed your views on God.

Have you also considered that your views on God may be wrong?

And, seeing neutrons is relevant within the context of your own argument. Your argument was logically flawed because I can make another argument using the same constructs that invalidates something that you think is valid.

One final point, belief is not the issue within science. No one "believes" in evolution. Rather we think that evidence supports the conclusion that evolution occurs. We can be persuaded by evidence that indicates otherwise. Please note, if evolution is wrong, it has implications for many aspects of your life and mine, including medicine and nutrition. This is not just some academic exercise; there are everyday-world consequences if evolution is wrong. Fortunately, it appears to be right (according to all present evidence).

 

[Shane Roach]

No, fellows. Because the Bible says absolutely nothing about neurtons but it lays out a complete story for the creation of the earth and the animals. And the creation story is tied directly to the story of Adam and Even which in turn is the story from which the concept of sin in the world comes from, which is the reason for Christ's sacrifice to begin with.

We do experiements on physical things that show us the characteristics of matter that we have named neutrons, and so forth. No such experiment is possible for evolution or the creation of the earth.

Once again, I simply find it hard to swallow that the universe popped into existence out of nothing and that all life on earth evolved from bacteria. Niether of these things are demonstrable, and over and over again I have seen that when people insist that these are the most likely eventualities to explain the past, I see that they are usually discounting conscious intervention, which I find to be a false assumption.

It is not axiomatic that we are the only inteligent things in all of reality, or even that we are the most powerful things in all of reality, or even that inteligence and great power, such as that which we might associate with God, are somehow mutually exclusive.

You are making assumptions you cannot prove, and you are also putting words in the mouths of people who have not said the things you say we said.

 

[Shane Roach]

Originally posted by Corey
One final point, belief is not the issue within science. No one "believes" in evolution. Rather we think that evidence supports the conclusion that evolution occurs. We can be persuaded by evidence that indicates otherwise. Please note, if evolution is wrong, it has implications for many aspects of your life and mine, including medicine and nutrition. This is not just some academic exercise; there are everyday-world consequences if evolution is wrong. Fortunately, it appears to be right (according to all present evidence).

This is false. Adaptation is part of biology, but the idea that adaptation can be extrapolated to explain the diversity of life on earth is a theory totally unrelated to the rest of biology. Nor is it necessary for much of anything except to explain the dichotomy that life is abundant but yet apparently very hard to form out of inanimate materials.

Really, the evolution theory is the result of not having an understanding of how life was formed.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Shane Roach
No, fellows. Because the Bible says absolutely nothing about neurtons but it lays out a complete story for the creation of the earth and the animals.

Yes. And the Bible lays out a number of other stories, and some of them are allegories and metaphors.

And the creation story is tied directly to the story of Adam and Even which in turn is the story from which the concept of sin in the world comes from, which is the reason for Christ's sacrifice to begin with.

Right. And this story is just as important if you think it's an allegory.

We do experiements on physical things that show us the characteristics of matter that we have named neutrons, and so forth. No such experiment is possible for evolution or the creation of the earth.

Well, we can certainly show that evolution happens *now*. We can't prove that it happened in the past, but we have a huge amount of evidence to suggest that it does. But we can see speciation and gradual separation of previously related life forms *today*. With our own eyes.

Once again, I simply find it hard to swallow that the universe popped into existence out of nothing and that all life on earth evolved from bacteria. Niether of these things are demonstrable, and over and over again I have seen that when people insist that these are the most likely eventualities to explain the past, I see that they are usually discounting conscious intervention, which I find to be a false assumption.

I think you may not understand the claimed point. It's not that all life evolved from bacteria; it's that life evolved from things a lot simpler than bacteria, in fact, and is still evolving, and still changing. We have seen changes in animals, even recently, and we have seen a gradual series of ever more interesting and complicated life forms going back millions of years.

It is not axiomatic that we are the only inteligent things in all of reality, or even that we are the most powerful things in all of reality, or even that inteligence and great power, such as that which we might associate with God, are somehow mutually exclusive.

You are making assumptions you cannot prove, and you are also putting words in the mouths of people who have not said the things you say we said.

Everyone is making unprovable assumptions; I can't even prove to you that I exist, but, given that there's a post with my name on it, it makes more sense to assume that I exist, and act as though I exist, than it does to assume that God put a post here just to make you think I exist.

I haven't got enough information to say whether any particular thing is actively done by God, or is simply a part of the way He made things. For all I know, plugging a computer in to a wall outlet works, not because it has to be that way, but because God actively wills it to be so. However, it turns out that I can live my life assuming that electricity works the way it appears to, and things go just fine.

I am assuming that evolution happened, because there is overwhelmingly strong evidence supporting it. I have no proof, but I have no proof of anything; in the end, my faith in God leads me to faith in my direct experience, and to faith in the things that can be concluded by studying those experiences.

 

[Shane Roach]

Well, the creation story and the story of Adam and Eve flow straight into Bible history in that they are also attached to the geneologies. I would be interested to know exactly where you believe the allegories stop and any sort of fact begins, or how you know what real thing the allegories refer to.

I don't see why you can't at least acknowledge the difficulty in this, and as well, I can't imagine why you find it so easy to believe that an occasional worm breeding a worm that makes unviable offspring translates to full blown evolution. Anything is possible, but if you don't see the improbability of that assumption, I can't imagine why.

As you point out, certain things are not proven or proveable, but there is definitely a rule of thumb that most of us use to determine likelihood. I see that what you believe is possible. What I don't understand is your claim that it is somehow more reliable or scientific a view than someone else's. It is a hypothesis based on the axiomatic and totally groundless assumption that there was no God working actively in creation, and also even if you totally discount God it assumes that the earth has behaved pretty much consistently over time, which we actually have a great deal of evidence is not true.

If you look around you, it's not hard to figure how a person comes to believe the world is flat. And in a very real and practical sense, the world IS flat. From day to day, hour to hour, you can run with the assumption that the world is flat and it gets you in relatively little trouble, unless you are navigating an ocean going vessel or shooting rockets into orbit and the like. But fundamentally, we find it now much more convenient to just think of the world as spherical, all the time, since on the grand scale that is how it is. We understand the concept of gradual curvature because of scale.

So, it seems to me that yes, adaptation happens, and that it is understandable to me how you might come to the conclusion that all life evolved from bacteria, but I suspect the problem is you haven't got the big picture yet, and this is what is creating the problem in the first place.

Looking down through history at all the times when people have said "we KNOW such and such," and, "NOW we know", and then, "NOW we kow something different," I wonder why people aren't a little more careful with what it is they claim to know or to be relatively sure.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Shane Roach
Well, the creation story and the story of Adam and Eve flow straight into Bible history in that they are also attached to the geneologies. I would be interested to know exactly where you believe the allegories stop and any sort of fact begins, or how you know what real thing the allegories refer to.

I've never been quite sure. I certainly believe that "homo sapiens" has existed for well over six thousand years... So I don't know what to make of the geneologies. I have sometimes suspected that they were the lists starting at the point at which people were able to make lists.

I don't see why you can't at least acknowledge the difficulty in this, and as well, I can't imagine why you find it so easy to believe that an occasional worm breeding a worm that makes unviable offspring translates to full blown evolution. Anything is possible, but if you don't see the improbability of that assumption, I can't imagine why.

Because it's just not that difficult. This is like a person who barely knows how to use a computer saying "I can't imagine why you believe that all it takes is a few thousand little lumps of text that don't do anything to make an email program". I *KNOW* how the email program works, and as such, it doesn't seem weird to me.

Biology is a lot more complicated than you're giving it credit for. This isn't a field you can look at for a few days, or even a year or two, and have a really solid understanding of.

That challenge to evolution is about at the level of "if God can do anything, can he create a rock so heavy he can't lift it?" as a challenge to Christianity. The issues which are interesting or hard in Christianity are so far removed from that question that it doesn't even feel like a challenge; it's just a sign that the challenger doesn't yet understand the basic framework.

As you point out, certain things are not proven or proveable, but there is definitely a rule of thumb that most of us use to determine likelihood. I see that what you believe is possible. What I don't understand is your claim that it is somehow more reliable or scientific a view than someone else's. It is a hypothesis based on the axiomatic and totally groundless assumption that there was no God working actively in creation, and also even if you totally discount God it assumes that the earth has behaved pretty much consistently over time, which we actually have a great deal of evidence is not true.

I'm not asserting that there was no God working actively in creation; I believe that no photon moves without His blessing. I just don't believe that he did it by waving a magic wand.
The theory of evolution is a good one because it explains a lot of things that are not well explained otherwise. If we're so different from everything else, why is so much about us the same?

So, it seems to me that yes, adaptation happens, and that it is understandable to me how you might come to the conclusion that all life evolved from bacteria, but I suspect the problem is you haven't got the big picture yet, and this is what is creating the problem in the first place.

Indeed. However, we can describe how every phase of that process would happen, with enough detail and enough supporting evidence to make it pretty convincing. The flat earth theory runs into problems you can verify by sailing a ship for long enough. The evolutionary theory runs into little hiccups or details, but the basic structure is pretty solid these days.

Looking down through history at all the times when people have said "we KNOW such and such," and, "NOW we know", and then, "NOW we kow something different," I wonder why people aren't a little more careful with what it is they claim to know or to be relatively sure.

Me too. I still remember when people were warning me of the coming ice age, and I won't be surprised if they're back to ice ages again in twenty years. On the other hand, Newton's laws of motion are holding up quite nicely; there are exceptions to them, but they're not very common exceptions. For all we know, there are exceptions to the general trend of evolution - but that doesn't change the fact that, in general, there's no particular *need* to refer to such exceptions to explain anything we see in the world today.

 

[Shane Roach]

Originally posted by seebs

I've never been quite sure. I certainly believe that "homo sapiens" has existed for well over six thousand years... So I don't know what to make of the geneologies. I have sometimes suspected that they were the lists starting at the point at which people were able to make lists.

I suspect you don't believe people lived hundreds of years either.

Originally posted by seebs
Because it's just not that difficult. This is like a person who barely knows how to use a computer saying "I can't imagine why you believe that all it takes is a few thousand little lumps of text that don't do anything to make an email program". I *KNOW* how the email program works, and as such, it doesn't seem weird to me.

Biology is a lot more complicated than you're giving it credit for. This isn't a field you can look at for a few days, or even a year or two, and have a really solid understanding of.

Leaving aside for a moment the odd conflict of you saying "it's not that hard" and then "biology is a lot more complicated than you give it credit for..." let me simply address that just because you don't think anyone who disagrees with you knows anything about biology is not very convincing, from a rhetorical standpoint. The basic theory of evolution, however, is not really all that complex a thing to comprehend, and the parts of it that stretch credulity are not that things adapt, or that things change over time, but rather that things get more and more complex while at the same time getting less and less able to survive, and that this process is somehow driven by the biological pressure to survive.

Bacteria can survive on the moon, as it turns out. Elephants, no.

There are some very basic fundamental problems with the theory, both in terms of quality (observed "speciation" is rudimentary at best) and quantity (how many species and how they get gradually more complex and more sensitive to environemental pressures).

Originally posted by seebs
I'm not asserting that there was no God working actively in creation; I believe that no photon moves without His blessing. I just don't believe that he did it by waving a magic wand.

Power exists. Knowledge and inteligence exist. Making something using knowledge and power can be observed. Whether or not something knowledgeable and powerful made the universe, or whether the universe made something knowledgeable and powerful, no one knows. You assume one, I assume the other.

Originally posted by seebs
Me too. I still remember when people were warning me of the coming ice age, and I won't be surprised if they're back to ice ages again in twenty years. On the other hand, Newton's laws of motion are holding up quite nicely; there are exceptions to them, but they're not very common exceptions. For all we know, there are exceptions to the general trend of evolution - but that doesn't change the fact that, in general, there's no particular *need* to refer to such exceptions to explain anything we see in the world today.

There's no particular need to assume we know things we don't know. There is no particular need to assert things happened in a way we know we can never prove.

 

[Corey]

Shane Roach wrote:

This is false.

Which part?

Adaptation is part of biology, but the idea that adaptation can be extrapolated to explain the diversity of life on earth is a theory totally unrelated to the rest of biology.

I had you pegged as somewhat intelligent. That's probably the most uninformed thing you have ever wrote. Are you daft or something? The theory of evolution is the linchpin on which the whole of modern biology rests.

Nor is it necessary for much of anything except to explain the dichotomy that life is abundant but yet apparently very hard to form out of inanimate materials.

That you have correct. The field that covers life arising from non-life is abiogenesis.

Really, the evolution theory is the result of not having an understanding of how life was formed.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Shane Roach

I suspect you don't believe people lived hundreds of years either.

I've always wondered whether that was literal or metaphorical. I have no direct experience, and it doesn't matter to me much either way.

Leaving aside for a moment the odd conflict of you saying "it's not that hard" and then "biology is a lot more complicated than you give it credit for..."

It's not that hard to see how it works, if you're willing to spend a fairly long time studying it. It sounds really weird if you haven't seen how it works.

Every field has these. Grab an almanac, write down a hundred numbers from it. I betcha that way more than half of them start with 1, 2, 3, or 4, but less than half start with 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9. This is a very weird thing, but it makes sense *once you know how it works*.

The basic theory of evolution, however, is not really all that complex a thing to comprehend, and the parts of it that stretch credulity are not that things adapt, or that things change over time, but rather that things get more and more complex while at the same time getting less and less able to survive, and that this process is somehow driven by the biological pressure to survive.

Bacteria can survive on the moon, as it turns out. Elephants, no.

When you take a gross simplification of a theory, you get very strange results. Things don't necessarily get more and more complex over time; there are constantly new and different strains of bacteria and viruses, too. However, complex things are able to compete in niches that simple things can't - just as the simple things can compete in niches that complicated ones can't.

There's no particular need to assume we know things we don't know. There is no particular need to assert things happened in a way we know we can never prove.

There are, however, very good reasons to study how animals came to be the way they are, and what's going on with them in the future.

If I were to assume that all animals were made precisely as they are today, by God, with no "process", I would be unable to answer the question of "how did we end up with fish which can only survive in polluted water". As is, I can answer that question.

Being able to understand this world is, I believe, useful to us; it allows us to serve as better stewards of it.

 

[mom2"angels"]

Oiginally posted by Ray K
Aerodynamics are for fixed-wing airplanes, not animals with flapping wings. I'm guessing that you are simply parroting this old, creationist tract and actually know very little about aerodynamics.

Actually Ray, Aerodynamics applies to many other things besides fixed wing airplanes including cars & even flapping wing birds and insects. The following are some websites and excerpts from them discussing this very subject. BTW these are not christian websites.


http://wings.avkids.com/Book/Animals/intermediate/birds-01.html

Welcome to the Beginner's Guide to Aerodynamics

What is aerodynamics? The word comes from two Greek words: aerios, concerning the air, and dynamis, meaning powerful. Aerodynamics is the study of forces and the resulting motion of objects through the air. Judging from the story of Daedalus and Icarus, humans have been interested in aerodynamics and flying for thousands of years, although flying in a heavier-than-airmachine has been possible only in the last hundred years. Aerodynamics affects the motion of a large airliner, a model rocket, a beach ball thrown near the shore, or a kite flying high overhead. The curveball thrown by big league baseball pitchers gets its curve from aerodynamics ...

...There is a weight limit for a flapping bird. The heavier the animal, the bigger its wings need to be. The bigger the wings, the more muscle is needed to move them.

&

http://www.sci.mus.mn.us/general_info/bhop/insectsinflight.html

Revised 11-13-97

How do insects fly?

Question

How can insects fly? According to the conventional laws of aerodynamics, insects can't fly. When flight is analyzed, insects generate only about half to a third of the lift needed to support their weight. Similar calculations show that small birds and bats do not provide enough lift for them to fly. Yet insects not only fly, but they fly forwards and backwards; they hover and manoever with greater agility than that of the most advanced jet fighter plane. How do they do this?

Answer

The airplane wing shape that enables planes to fly doesn't work for insects. In a plane wing, which is fixed, the declining angle of the wing in relation to the air flow creates a low pressure area over the upper wing surface that causes lift. Lift is generated by the difference in pressure between the upper and the lower surfaces of the wing. Insects, apparently, use a different mechanism. As the insect wing begins its downstroke, the air striking the leading edge of the wing begins to somersault into a spiral to form a vortex at the leading edge. Then the whirling air is pulled along the leading edge like a party streamer. so that the whole vorex is stuck to the wing surface well beyond the halfway point of the downstroke. This is a lift mechanism different from that on airplane wings. The lift force during the downstroke is one and a half times that needed to lift a Manduca moth and keep it aloft. How the helical flow of air is maintained along the wingspan has yet to be determined. These studies were made by zoologist Charles Ellington of Cambridge University in England. Details of his experiments are available in an article by Martin Brooks in the New Scientist, October 11, 1997.

Again look it up.

Did you before you posted that evidence of ignorance?

Yes, obviously I did!
My only point is that some creatures have very remarkable abilities and I don't believe that they JUST HAPPEND.



(in response to examples of missing link species)
We can. Penguins, bats, flying fish are some obvious examples. Lungfish are a still surviving transitional form.

As far as I know a penguin is still a bird, a bat is still a rodent and the fish are still fish.

Just because certain species have certain animals in them that have the same charactoristics as animals of other species does not mean that they evolved from each other or some similar creature. There are way too many blanks to be filled before I believe that. Survival of the fittest allows creatures to mimic the environment and even each other to provide advantages to it. But each kind of animal stays that kind.


You ask me to specify one missing link species, as if it would take just one to prove my point. And then what do you do? You name one YOURSELF, and then say that doesn't count because "God threw him in there just for fun" !!!!!
Talk about making yourself look dumb.

Number one, God IS like that. Number two, does it make you feel better about yourself to put other people down? If you want to disagree with me and give explanations as to why you think I'm wrong thats fine. But to call me Dumb? Really Now.


One last question. You say you are a biology major. Exactly how far into Biology 101 are you?


I have a bachelors of science in Biology/Chemistry, 3.5 GPA. I even got an A in my evolution class. I am by no means an expert, nor am I claiming to be.

I can tell by reading all your posts that you have armed yourself very well with information and For The Most Part , you are fairly accurate as far as the THEORY of evolution goes.

My problem is that you keep asking for someone to prove that creationism is true, but evolution by ITS very nature can not be proven true OR untrue. (It takes millions of years for these changes to occur.) Well isn't that convenient. It automatically means no one will ever see it happen.

You say after a while of not being proven wrong the general consensus begins to accept it as fact. Well, the general consensus thought the earth was flat once too. Evolution is not a Fact it is only a Thoery.

 

[Heath Anderson]

Originally posted by Shane Roach


This is false. Adaptation is part of biology, but the idea that adaptation can be extrapolated to explain the diversity of life on earth is a theory totally unrelated to the rest of biology. Nor is it necessary for much of anything except to explain the dichotomy that life is abundant but yet apparently very hard to form out of inanimate materials.

Really, the evolution theory is the result of not having an understanding of how life was formed.

This assertion is just plain false I'm afraid. The theory of evolution underpins every modern field of biological science - whether molecular or morphological.

The theory itself is not actually disputed -there is simply too much evidence for that. The only thing that is really still contentious in the scientific community is the exact dynamics of evolution - (punctuated equilibria, neutrality of mutations etc)

If any of the fundamentals of evolution were ever wrong, Modern biology (every single aspect of it) would be based on false premises. However, since our understanding of biology is both falsifiable and reproducible, and we get the same answers over and over again, this would lead us to infer that the ToE is infact, at least in it's fundamental principles, correct.

 

[Heath Anderson]

Originally posted by mom2"angels"
Oiginally posted by Ray K
Aerodynamics are for fixed-wing airplanes, not animals with flapping wings. I'm guessing that you are simply parroting this old, creationist tract and actually know very little about aerodynamics.

Actually Ray, Aerodynamics applies to many other things besides fixed wing airplanes including cars & even flapping wing birds and insects. The following are some websites and excerpts from them discussing this very subject. BTW these are not christian websites.


http://wings.avkids.com/Book/Animals/intermediate/birds-01.html

Welcome to the Beginner's Guide to Aerodynamics

What is aerodynamics? The word comes from two Greek words: aerios, concerning the air, and dynamis, meaning powerful. Aerodynamics is the study of forces and the resulting motion of objects through the air. Judging from the story of Daedalus and Icarus, humans have been interested in aerodynamics and flying for thousands of years, although flying in a heavier-than-airmachine has been possible only in the last hundred years. Aerodynamics affects the motion of a large airliner, a model rocket, a beach ball thrown near the shore, or a kite flying high overhead. The curveball thrown by big league baseball pitchers gets its curve from aerodynamics ...

...There is a weight limit for a flapping bird. The heavier the animal, the bigger its wings need to be. The bigger the wings, the more muscle is needed to move them.

&

http://www.sci.mus.mn.us/general_info/bhop/insectsinflight.html

Revised 11-13-97

How do insects fly?

Question

How can insects fly? According to the conventional laws of aerodynamics, insects can't fly. When flight is analyzed, insects generate only about half to a third of the lift needed to support their weight. Similar calculations show that small birds and bats do not provide enough lift for them to fly. Yet insects not only fly, but they fly forwards and backwards; they hover and manoever with greater agility than that of the most advanced jet fighter plane. How do they do this?

Answer

The airplane wing shape that enables planes to fly doesn't work for insects. In a plane wing, which is fixed, the declining angle of the wing in relation to the air flow creates a low pressure area over the upper wing surface that causes lift. Lift is generated by the difference in pressure between the upper and the lower surfaces of the wing. Insects, apparently, use a different mechanism. As the insect wing begins its downstroke, the air striking the leading edge of the wing begins to somersault into a spiral to form a vortex at the leading edge. Then the whirling air is pulled along the leading edge like a party streamer. so that the whole vorex is stuck to the wing surface well beyond the halfway point of the downstroke. This is a lift mechanism different from that on airplane wings. The lift force during the downstroke is one and a half times that needed to lift a Manduca moth and keep it aloft. How the helical flow of air is maintained along the wingspan has yet to be determined. These studies were made by zoologist Charles Ellington of Cambridge University in England. Details of his experiments are available in an article by Martin Brooks in the New Scientist, October 11, 1997.

Again look it up.

Did you before you posted that evidence of ignorance?

Yes, obviously I did!
My only point is that some creatures have very remarkable abilities and I don't believe that they JUST HAPPEND.



(in response to examples of missing link species)
We can. Penguins, bats, flying fish are some obvious examples. Lungfish are a still surviving transitional form.

As far as I know a penguin is still a bird, a bat is still a rodent and the fish are still fish.

Just because certain species have certain animals in them that have the same charactoristics as animals of other species does not mean that they evolved from each other or some similar creature. There are way too many blanks to be filled before I believe that. Survival of the fittest allows creatures to mimic the environment and even each other to provide advantages to it. But each kind of animal stays that kind.


You ask me to specify one missing link species, as if it would take just one to prove my point. And then what do you do? You name one YOURSELF, and then say that doesn't count because "God threw him in there just for fun" !!!!!
Talk about making yourself look dumb.

Number one, God IS like that. Number two, does it make you feel better about yourself to put other people down? If you want to disagree with me and give explanations as to why you think I'm wrong thats fine. But to call me Dumb? Really Now.


One last question. You say you are a biology major. Exactly how far into Biology 101 are you?


I have a bachelors of science in Biology/Chemistry, 3.5 GPA. I even got an A in my evolution class. I am by no means an expert, nor am I claiming to be.

I can tell by reading all your posts that you have armed yourself very well with information and For The Most Part , you are fairly accurate as far as the THEORY of evolution goes.

My problem is that you keep asking for someone to prove that creationism is true, but evolution by ITS very nature can not be proven true OR untrue. (It takes millions of years for these changes to occur.) Well isn't that convenient. It automatically means no one will ever see it happen.

You say after a while of not being proven wrong the general consensus begins to accept it as fact. Well, the general consensus thought the earth was flat once too. Evolution is not a Fact it is only a Thoery.

Creationism similarly, cannot be proven true nor untrue - By happening over [allegedly] 6000 years ago and invoking supernatural intervention, it is impossible to even attempt to scientifically recreate it. Isn't that convenient? NOTHING in science is ever able to be proved true nor untrue. There is only varying scales of confidence in an inference based on empirical evidence. Evolution has literally tonnes of evidence, in the form of genetics, physiology, morphology, ecology, paleontology and geology. The only record for Creation is a highly dubious book, badly translated, lauded as Divine scripture/revelation. While there may be inadequacies in the theory of evolution (as any scientific endeavour has) This does not inherently support the position of Creationism. In pointing out the flaws in the ToE, you are not actually providing evidence for your case.

Now we get to this concept of Transitional fossils. I believe one of the main problems with this argument is that people inherently look for something that is a mix, almost a chimera, of two other organisms. Evolution simply doesn't work like this. While a lung fish is, cladistically speaking, a fish, it is definately a transitional form because in some way, it provides a step away from the form that it had previously taken. It is still a fish, simply because no mutation would ever carry an organism in such a huge jump away from it's current state. Every single organism that has ever lived is a transitional form. A transitional form doesn't have to be half bird half reptile, as Archaeopteryx, but it must show some directional adaptation. Accumulated directional adaptations eventually result in a species that is distinct from the original species. As a result penguins, despite being genetically birds, are transitional forms because they exhibit extreme directional adaptation. Similar examples include bats and whales.