Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Don't forget the spoiler effect. A proto-bird using isn't wings as spoilers could run faster than otherwise possible.challenger said:Yes but partial wings (such as on the flying squirral) could happen quite feasibly. Over time, animals with partial wings could develop stronger muscles, making gliding easier or longer lasting, eventually developing into flight.
And young chukkars, using their wings as spoilers can actually run up slopes beyond vertical (~100 deg.) and glide away. Flapping wings would extend the gliding range.fragmentsofdreams said:Don't forget the spoiler effect. A proto-bird using isn't wings as spoilers could run faster than otherwise possible.
dstauff said:
I apologize for beating a dead horse, but I want to make sure I fully understand your wife's point of view so that there are no misunderstandings. How long does your wife believe each day of creation was? If she doesn't believe God created everything in six 24-hour days, then how long was each day? Does she believe God put some DNA in a single-celled organism, then made it evolve over time? I know you didn't state that each day lasted millions of years, but what other alternative would there be besides each day lasting for only 24 hours?
What ideologies? Evolution isn't atheism! And how does evolution "devalue" the power of God? Is God any less powerful by using the process of evolution rather than zapping each species into existence in an instant?dstauff said:I would like an explanation from somoeone who is a Christian on how "evolution" and God could possibly co-exist. The ideologies are opposites, and evolution devalues the power of God.
But if you look at Genesis 2:4b, a literal reading of the Bible also states that creation took place in one day. This is only one of many contradictions between a literal reading of the 2 creation stories. Genesis 1 is one creation story and Genesis 2-3 is a completely separate creation story. So the text tells you that your literal reading is wrong.dstauff said:If you study the Bible (a book that all Christians trust in), you will clearly see that the earth was created in six normal, 24-hour days. This alone makes it impossible for evolution to have occured. I apologize for alienating all of the non-Christians in this forum for a moment, but I think you will get over it.
The alternative is try to stop forcing Genesis 1 to be science and historically accurate! Instead of forcing your opinion on Genesis, put yourself in the position of the people of the time and try to understand what Genesis 1 was saying to them!dstauff said:If she doesn't believe God created everything in six 24-hour days, then how long was each day? Does she believe God put some DNA in a single-celled organism, then made it evolve over time? I know you didn't state that each day lasted millions of years, but what other alternative would there be besides each day lasting for only 24 hours?
would it? then if a small wing is such a hinderance, why are there fossils with them? We can follow the theropod lineage such that we see the change from slightly feathery/downy dinosaurs, right through dino/birds with primitive wings and intermediate feather types through to the slightly wierd dino/birds with feathers on their front and back legs, through to dino/birds with mostly avian features through to modern birds. If all of these intermediate forms are as bad as you suggest, then why did they even exist?buddy1 said:
Also, unless you believe in the "hopeful monster" theory, even Goulds punctuated equilibrium requires small changes in successive generations. A small wing would be a hindrance, not a help, and would be eliminated by natural selection. Evolution cannot say, "this will be helpful later so keep it." The ideas that small wings could be useful for catching insects is pretty far fetched and coming up with uses for intermediate characteristics really runs out of credibility pretty quickly when you have to account for the plethora of life with all its variations.
Why not? As the changes accumulate, they will do exactly that.buddy1 said:You are not identical to your parents. Adding the differences of many generations can produce large differences.
Everyone agrees with that but it does not mean that the change taking place is going to make fish into amphibians or dinosaurs into birds, much less bacteria into biologists.
Selection among possibilities is how you get an increase in information. Well, since more individuals are born (possibilities) than survive and reproduce (actuality), selection does generate new information.For that you need NEW INFORMATION. You need lungs instead of gills to live on land. You need wings and guidance systems in order to fly. It is either naïve or downright deceptive to say as some evolutionists do, "ability to fly gave the protobirds a selective advantage."
Punctuated equilibria is standard Darwinism.Also, unless you believe in the "hopeful monster" theory, even Goulds punctuated equilibrium requires small changes in successive generations.
Not when the wing is a good heat exchanger! Or when the forelimb is also a very good limb for grasping prey.A small wing would be a hindrance, not a help, and would be eliminated by natural selection.
The idea that feathered forelimbs would act as traps for insects was indeed far fetched -- and wrong. But that theory was falsified long ago.Evolution cannot say, "this will be helpful later so keep it." The ideas that small wings could be useful for catching insects is pretty far fetched and coming up with uses for intermediate characteristics really runs out of credibility pretty quickly when you have to account for the plethora of life with all its variations.
Then you have read some mighty odd history books.jb-creation said:In response to Nathan Poe's response of my explanation of the varying approaches to the Genesis account of creation, I was more or less directing this at the Christians in this thread, not the athiests. You never really gave a good reason for the basis on which one should decide what is to be read literally and what is to be read allegorically, especially since it reads in the same literary style as history.
All of which was done by Bishop James Ussher, who calculated the creation at 4004 B.C.As to the 6,000 years never being mentioned in the Bible, it is a simple matter of the addition of the chronologies given to us (and, even if some individuals are missing from the chronological accounts as postulated by old-earth creationists, this does not alter the lengths of the time intervals themselves between individuals).
Yes but partial wings (such as on the flying squirral) could happen quite feasibly. Over time, animals with partial wings could develop stronger muscles, making gliding easier or longer lasting, eventually developing into flight.
Don't forget the spoiler effect. A proto-bird using isn't wings as spoilers could run faster than otherwise possible.
And young chukkars, using their wings as spoilers can actually run up slopes beyond vertical (~100 deg.) and glide away. Flapping wings would extend the gliding range.
Modification of structures gives "new" structures. For instance, lungs are modified swim bladders. Wings are modified forelimbs.
One of the demonstrated ways to get new structures is called "exaptation". That is, a structure evolves for one function and then is also good for another! Insect wings are a good example. They are modified gills. First they were modified as heat exchangers. With the high density of blood vessels, what was used to exchange oxygen with water is also useful for exchanging heat with air. The larger the modified gills are and the flatter they are, the better they are at being heat exchangers. People have done the studies and it turns out that heat exchangers at the optimum size to exchange heat are also at the minimum size to get the insect off the ground. So suddenly you have a new function for the heat exchangers. They are now wings. Not very good ones, but functional. So now incremental improvements can be made to make them very good wings...Instead, as people pointed out, feathered forelimbs that could be pumped up and down during running (which helps balance; try running next time while holding your arms still) allows the animal to run up steep slopes after prey. Thus the prey can't get away and the feathered forelimbs are useful. Not as wings, but for catching prey (lizards, small mammals, small dinos) and chasing that prey up slopes. However, just at the point where the feathered forelimbs are most effective at running up slopes is also the point where they start to lift the animal off the ground! Voila! Instant wings. Exaptation.
Hubert Yockey published a monograph on the microbiology, information theory, and mathematics necessary to accomplish that feat. Accordingly, the probability of evolving one molecule of iso-1-cytochrome c, a small protein common in plants and animals, is an astounding one chance in 2.3 times ten billion vigintillion. The magnitude of this impossibility may be appreciated by realizing that ten billion vigintillion is one followed by 75 zeros"
septembers_crash said:
And this all happened in a non-intellegent way? By random mutations?
In order to better something, you have to have intellegent intervention. Any time you make inprovements to something, whether it be a house, your trees, or a Boeing 747, you make a conscious effort to improve it. It doesn't improve on its own. A 747 left in a field will not get better, but worse. A backyard will deteriorate without maintainance. Weeds will grow aroung your trees without your intervention. The tree loses nutrients to other plants that way. Natural order goes from order to disorder, functionality to non-functionality. All organisms gradually decay as they grow older. Animals of prey feed on older animals. Why? The older animals can't run as fast, can't fight as well. Even in humans this is apparent. My great grandfather has dementia. Do we see ANY improvement in the natural order of things? I don't see any.
Random mutations combined with natural selection. Noone here is claiming that these things came about by random mutations only. Natural selection is the process which gives the process direction.septembers_crash said:And this all happened in a non-intellegent way? By random mutations?
It all starts with mutations though. If no mutations were present, everything would be on the same playing field. Mutations must come before any organism can have any advantage over other organismsRandom mutations combined with natural selection. Noone here is claiming that these things came about by random mutations only. Natural selection is the process which gives the process direction.
First, for clarification, I understand natural selection as:Um, no. In order to better something you need an ability to add new information (mutations) and a way to organize it (Natural selection). You seem to be missing natural selection in your understanding of evolution.
These things happen to be non intelligent.
septembers_crash said:First, for clarification, I understand natural selection as:
An organism is better equipped for their environment, and as a result, its descendents continue, while another organism's line, which is less equipped to live in that same given environment, tends to die out.
Second, Mutations don't ADD new information. They modify or delete information. DNA is either rearranged or deleted, but new DNA doesn't suddenly appear from somewhere and create something "new."
Thirdly, The first object used (747) was inanimate and was used as illustration. The second set of objects (trees, weeds) were animate objects for the same purpose.
I've seen the article before. However, that new DNA still came from somewhere. It wasn't brand new DNA. It's not like it wasn't there before. The basic information was still there.Arikay said:Mutations also add imformation as per insertion mutations. A good example is the ol nylon bug,
Your illustrations were faulty because they are not good examples but strawmen.
Looks to me like you've got this one down.septembers_crash said:First, for clarification, I understand natural selection as:
An organism is better equipped for their environment, and as a result, its descendents continue, while another organism's line, which is less equipped to live in that same given environment, tends to die out.
First, information is a pretty sketchy term, especially when talking about mutations. However, mutations can add 'information'. For the theory, see this thread.Second, Mutations don't ADD new information. They modify or delete information. DNA is either rearranged or deleted, but new DNA doesn't suddenly appear from somewhere and create something "new."
And they're both strawmen.Thirdly, The first object used (747) was inanimate and was used as illustration. The second set of objects (trees, weeds) were animate objects for the same purpose.
But new information was created. That's what you were after wasn't it?septembers_crash said:I've seen the article before. However, that new DNA still came from somewhere. It wasn't brand new DNA. It's not like it wasn't there before. The basic information was still there.
Possible beneficial effects of mutation are not illustrated and selecting effects like natural selection are not illustrated.Can you explain how my arguments were strawmen?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?