Proof of design and impossibility of evolution.

[SithDoughnut]

The changes has to be prositive, because it won't lead to design if there is no constant postive change leading to that design.

Going back to my eye colour analogy - what is positive about having brown eyes as opposed to blue eyes.

You can't just say bunch of random mutations happened, there was no advantage, but one day, it became a wing, and not only that, but the whole body was developed with that wing to glide or fly.

That's not what anyone is saying.

I've read evolution books, I'm not unaware. Yes some traits can be passed down that are not advantagoues but it won't lead to huge change, the huge change in design is through this picking and choosing explained by natural selection.

It's not a huge change, it's the result of many small changes.

Try to think clearly as well as in detail, and don't just stick to words in generality to refute detailed arguments that are valid and sound.

I will do that when there is a detailed argument for creationism that is valid and sound. Until then, I'll stick with what I'm doing now.

 

[AskTheFamily]

See the video I posted. It addresses your question of a 1/1000 wing.

Then say it in your own words and explain how it address my point.

 

[Zoot]

Yes you can repeat, and just assert it, and then think it's true.

AsktheFamily,

Your question has been answered. What you call "1/10th of a wing" can have advantages other than flight, which explains why they would be selected for long before the other, different advantages might arise. If you have any other questions, please ask them.

 

[AskTheFamily]

Going back to my eye colour analogy - what is positive about having brown eyes as opposed to blue eyes.

Your assuming blue eyes and brown eyes were not in the gene pool to start with and it was by a mutation, which is an assumption.

However, it's irrelevant to the other point, because an eye is an eye, I don't know details of pigment change, so I can't really comment about it.

However I know there is a clossal difference between a lump that doesn't detect sound, and that which does. It doesn't just happen bang like that. There is a huge design in all these process. How the sound is received, how it's conveyed, etc.. It's not simple stuff. In the past, people might of have thought life is simple, they are said to even think rats emerge from dirty things but I doubt people actually thought this. But what I am saying we know now there is a huge design in these things, it would be like saying a whole telemunication in a city appeared randomly out of a tornado. It makes no sense. No detection, all of sudden, it detects hears, and the brain also recognize this and has a way of analyzing it?

 

[Zoot]

Here are a few examples of tenths of things that could give different advantages from the "final" product:

1. Prehensile tails. One-tenth of a tail gives better balance. A whole tail can be used to hang from a branch.

2. Tongues. One-tenth of a tongue can taste food. A whole tongue can be used to talk.

3. Hands. One-tenth of a hand can be used to walk on. A whole hand can be used to pick things up.

4. Insect-eating flowers. One-tenth of an insect-eating flower can be used for reproduction. A whole insect-eating flower can be used for food.

5. Gliding skin flaps. One-tenth of a gliding skin flap can be used to jump further. A whole gliding skin flap can be used to glide.

 

[AskTheFamily]

AsktheFamily,

Your question has been answered. What you call "1/10th of a wing" can have advantages other than flight, which explains why they would be selected for long before the other, different advantages might arise. If you have any other questions, please ask them.

No 1/10th wing/glider is not of advantage to jumping or gliding or to anything and I have explaiend why, while you just continue to re-assert and re-assert.

It can become better at jumping, more areo dymanic, but 1/100th of a glider doesn't glide.

A glider glides, but what leads to it, doesn't. It's very simple.

Your wanting to give somewhat of a gliding thing that gives it slightly areo dynamic jumping, but when you think about the extra flesh on the arms/legs, till it actually glides and helps, it's useless. It doesn't make it more araeo dymnaic, nothing. Your mixing two different things in a very deceptive way to yourself and others refusing to think about it.

But continue to re-assert.

 

[Isambard]

Then say it in your own words and explain how it address my point.

He visually demonstrates the advantages of "1/1000" of a wing. He then goes on to show various examples of "partial wings".

 

[Zoot]

No 1/10th wing/glider is not of advantage to jumping or gliding or to anything and I have explaiend why, while you just continue to re-assert and re-assert.

It can become better at jumping, more areo dymanic, but 1/100th of a glider doesn't glide.

I didn't say that 1/100th of a glider glides. I said that something that can provide an advantage in jumping can turn out to be 1/100th of a glider.

A glider glides, but what leads to it, doesn't. It's very simple.

I agree. But my point is that what leads to it can have other (NOT gliding) advantages, and therefore be selected for.

Your wanting to give somewhat of a gliding thing that gives it slightly areo dynamic jumping, but when you think about the extra flesh on the arms/legs, till it actually glides and helps, it's useless. It doesn't make it more araeo dymnaic, nothing. Your mixing two different things in a very deceptive way to yourself and others refusing to think about it.

I am saying that it is possible for it to be useful for other reasons, long before it becomes useful for gliding.

You say, "It doesn't make it more aerodynamic." How do you know that?

 

[AskTheFamily]

A short tail is a tail, a long is a tail.

2. Tongues. One-tenth of a tongue can taste food. A whole tongue can be used to talk.

A short tongue is a tonge. A long tongue is a tongue.

5. Gliding skin flaps. One-tenth of a gliding skin flap can be used to jump further. A whole gliding skin flap can be used to glide

It's helps glide, it helps glide. What about the process to get it to glide?

Your taking the step "to gliding skin flap" from where? From no where to that... Yet your saying the process tot hat all the way helped gliding?

It doesn't help gliding untill it has some design and features in balance with it's body that helps it glide. How did you get the glide skin flap?

This is what I'm saying. The process to that is all useless skin, when it becomes gliding, it's a glider.

However how did it get to that gliding skin flap?

A hand is a hand if it has 3 fingers or two or 7. An arm is an arm if it connects to a hand and you know what an arm is.

But it cannot go from just skin sticking on your side and become useful, to an arm, and then develop a hand.

Same with flesh on the legs, it's not useful for gliding and jumping, it makes it heavier if anything! LEss areo dynamic.

It takes design for it to given it any glide in it's jump. That design has to be explained by mutations + natural selection, however, all the way to there, it's useless.

 

[AskTheFamily]

He visually demonstrates the advantages of "1/1000" of a wing. He then goes on to show various examples of "partial wings".

So say it in your words.

 

[IzzyPop]

I meant no advantage at all.


It would be hearing if it can receive vibrations and convey it. An ear that cannot pick up vibrations is useless, am I correct? So it had to be able to pick vibrations and not only that, but the brain analyzing it and making use of it. There could not have been a process to lead to this with blind chance and natural selection.

I can feel large vibrations in my chest. No ears required. It is not a large leap to develop slightly more sensitive receptors in gradual steps.

DNA is just a matter of how you look at things.

Not really. When viruses alter a bit of DNA and that same alteration is found in the same spot amongst different species, it points to a common ancestor.

Fossil evidence, there is lack of evidence in fossil evidence and it's all imagination that fills the gaps.

For some species. Others not so much. Whales and horses come to mind.

Yet trees without fruits are doing better? So no advantage of fruits over none-fruits, so how do you explain the numerous fruits we have?

There is an advantage. No advantage means no fruit.

I have no problem with this type of stuff. Just because one type of change can occur, doesn't mean anything can become anything. And the latter has been proven impossible.

Nobody is saying that anything can become anything. We are saying that some things become some other things that in turn become some other things.

Proof? I showed my reasoning, show how it's flawed.

Your entire premise rests on you not understanding how a few bodily systems came into being without a designer. Never mind the mountains of evidence, never mind the actual medical benefits that we reap because evolution is real, never mind that no other scientific theory has stood up against all the nay-sayers that evolution has and it still comes out unscathed, it is all false because you don't understand it. That is the flaw.

 

[AskTheFamily]

Izzy, I really don't see a point to responding. You haven't responded to any of the points at all.

If you like having the last say, you can have it.

 

[Zoot]

A short tongue is a tonge. A long tongue is a tongue.

I didn't say a short tongue, I said 1/10th of a tongue - a predecessor to what became a talking tongue. 1/10th of a talking tongue isn't a talking tongue. It can't talk. It has to undergo many mutations to be able to provide the advantage of talking, but none of those mutations provides speech! So how could it evolve?

A short tail is a tail, a long is a tail.

A short tail is not a prehensile tail, though. It can't hang from trees until it's very long, so how did it evolve? If it can't hang from trees, it gave no advantage and there was no reason for it to evolve!

 

[AskTheFamily]

I didn't say a short tongue, I said 1/10th of a tongue - a predecessor to what became a talking tongue. 1/10th of a talking tongue isn't a talking tongue. It can't talk. It has to undergo many mutations to be able to provide the advantage of talking, but none of those mutations provides speech! So how could it evolve?

This is for you to explain not me. But you are not understanding what I mean by 1/10th wing/glider. This is all what I'm saying.

A short tail is not a prehensile tail, though. It can't hang from trees until it's very long, so how did it evolve?

I don't beleive in evolution so that God gives things 1/10 of tails to develop to longer tails later, but a short tail become larger is ok, if there was advantage at each stage, it can evolve.

However, you are skipping to glidding while there is a long process before it can get to that, that process of adding flesh so that it can glide or become more areo dynamic, there is none.

You add 1% of that flesh you need for gliding? Is it advantage? For the aremo dynamic? Is it advantage? How long this process has to be, do you realize mutations are not simple? You can;'t just have mutation, bang, flesh that is useful for gliding. This is not bioligical possible, things are much more complicated then for such randomness.

And the extra flesh that doesn't help glide, doesn't help jump higher nor make it more areo dynamic.

Your thinking bang "gliding type skin", then that develops more, but your cheating, your escaping the problem, the 1/10000000000th of that gliding skin, is it useful? Then it keeps going and going, till it becomes finally useful for gliding? By what process?

I understand things getting faster. I understand things jumping higher. But how do you explain skin developing to gliding skin when up to that point, it's of no gliding advantage?

You think added flesh makes things automatic more aero dymanic?

 

[AskTheFamily]

Ok, let's forget Birds or bats for one second.

What about a fly? How does undeveloped wings help a fly?

As I said there is so much proof of Design. It's lack of critical thinking.

What good is a useless wing on a fly? How does have anything with jump and areo dynamicness?

Think about how many times a fly came and it annoyed you, and every time it came to you, there was a proof of your Creator and Designer......

 

[Zoot]

Your thinking bang "gliding type skin", then that develops more, but your cheating, your escaping the problem, the 1/10000000000th of that gliding skin, is it useful?

Your problem is that you are certain that 1/100000000th of that gliding skin is not useful for something other than gliding. How can you be sure of that?

 

[AskTheFamily]

Your problem is that you are certain that 1/100000000th of that gliding skin is not useful for something other than gliding. How can you be sure of that?

If it's useful for something else, it still can't develop to gliding skin when there is no directing of that by mutation + natural selection.

As I said, let's leave bat and birds for a second and discuss flies? The aero stuff for sure doesn't apply to wings of a fly, so let's discuss the fly.

 

[Isambard]

So say it in your words.

I just did!

You keep ignoring the evidence staring at you in the face. Is your god so weak that a 6minute scares you so much that you can't watch it?

 

[Zoot]

If it's useful for something else, it still can't develop to gliding skin when there is no directing of that by mutation + natural selection.

It would obviously be an accident that one advantageous trait makes another advantageous trait possible. But again, prehensile tails - what's useful for balance (longer and longer tail) gives rise to a new trait (being able to hold things with it). If we apply your argument to that case, we would say that because shorter tails can't hold things, there is no directing of that mutation for the tail to get longer and longer until suddenly it's long enough to be prehensile.

In other words, if it's useful for something else, that other usefulness can direct the mutation until, by accident, it turns out it's useful for gliding.

As I said, let's leave bat and birds for a second and discuss flies? The aero stuff for sure doesn't apply to wings of a fly, so let's discuss the fly.

Happy to discuss flies when we're done with the evolution of one trait making another trait possible.

 

[AskTheFamily]

It would obviously be an accident that one advantageous trait makes another advantageous trait possible.

What advantage would that extra skin give? It doesn't glide, but somehow you believe by random process that is being guided towards "gliding", it will become gliding. So your just giving to chance, while the chance is practically impossible, and this would not have to happened with just bats, but other birds, in all sorts of places....

But again, prehensile tails - what's useful for balance (longer and longer tail) gives rise to a new trait (being able to hold things with it). If we apply your argument to that case, we would say that because shorter tails can't hold things, there is no directing of that mutation for the tail to get longer and longer until suddenly it's long enough to be prehensile.

A tail is a tail, it can get longer and short, and if there is advantage for it being longer, it will get longer, otherwise, it won't. However if a short tail was of no advantage at all, then it could not have developed by evolution either, and yes this logic applies. A tail if was useless, would not randomly develop either.

And it would have to be at advantage getting longer and it's possible that a tail is a proof, I have not thought about it.

God could have created all this to test how we think. For example, we are similar to Apes and Monkeys. But we got to tail. If we had a tail it would advantageous. It doesn't make sense to loose it.

At the sametime, if an Ape didn't have a tail and was balanced, what would 5 centimer tail really do for it?

In other words, if it's useful for something else, that other usefulness can direct the mutation until, by accident, it turns out it's useful for gliding.

No that makes no sense, gliding has a design, if it gave it warmth, it would develop in that direction and not towards gliding.

Happy to discuss flies when we're done with the evolution of one trait making another trait possible.

I have never argued generalities. I argued a specific thing. So if you prove an instaneous, it won't prove universal. And I never argued universal, so you won't be proven me wrong.

So let's just discuss flies. The argument is all the same, except, it's flies. I gain uper advantage, because your argumetns which I disagree with and we debated, don't apply to it.

So it's up to you to explain how a 1/100000 wing of a fly is useful and develops to a half a wing, and then it makes it fly.

You should realize I have the whole of creation in my arsenal to try prove creationism and design

And so far we have not talked complicated relationships and structures, we keeping it simple. The more detailed you get in science, the more evident it becomes that there is Design because it's really really so delicate.