Proof of design and impossibility of evolution.

[AskTheFamily]

As I said, eyes, ears, arms, all this, we can think about. There is proof of Design. It's always been evident.

People took the following sacts

1) There is mutations.
2) There is natural selection.
3) There is similar DNA
4) There is some old fossils of other creatures they can use their imagination as intermediate steps while everyone agrees, not much fossils have been found.

These are the four basic building blocks of evolution.

I have not disputed any of them. Naturally, this was not really proof, because evolution theory is circular logic and it's reasoning is circular.

You can make images of anything transformer to anything. It all looks nice when you draw the imaginary steps.

It's a theory and it's not proven as people try to make it out to be. So there was always possibility of it being wrong.

A simply analysis of creation shows it being wrong. A fly shows it being wrong.

An ear shows it being wrong. The very existence of logic and imagination and concious, show it being wrong.

 

[Zoot]

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

Again, if that logic worked, you could say: "Prehensile tails have a design. If they improved balance, they would develop in that direction and not towards being able to hold things." It is possible that a development is both useful immediately and differently useful in the long term.

In the case of the skin that was eventually used by flying foxes to glide, I've suggested that gradual developments could have increased jumping ability before making gliding possible. That's just one possible explanation. Perhaps the growing skin was useful for protecting young from cold and predators. Perhaps it was useful for camouflage. Who knows? My point is that it's possible, in response to your claim that it was impossible.

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.

You said you had proved that evolution was impossible. I'm not going to show how it's possible in this instance and then move on to your next one, one at a time.

Though it turns out that theories about the evolution of insect wings are quite interesting, so if you want to tell me about your thoughts on it, go for it.

 

[AskTheFamily]

Again, if that logic worked, you could say: "Prehensile tails have a design. If they improved balance, they would develop in that direction and not towards being able to hold things." It is possible that a development is both useful immediately and differently useful in the long term.

The advantages may be differnet but the direction is towards taller tails right? So it's not the same. However you should address the particular argument.

In the case of the skin that was eventually used by flying foxes to glide, I've suggested that gradual developments could have increased jumping ability before making gliding possible.

I know what you suggested and I repeated extra doesn;t help jumping. More muscles, body design, it helps, but the skin developing to glide will not help.

Perhaps the growing skin was useful for protecting young from cold and predators.

The mutations would then lead to that direction, and it would not be developing towards design of gliding which is not really related with warmy. It would become more thick skinned and more fur, etc, that kind of thing. The gliding type skin is unrelated with direction.

The tail, both advantages are related to longer direction. So this is why it seems logically possible.

Perhaps it was useful for camouflage. Who knows? My point is that it's possible, in response to your claim that it was impossible.

Camouflage is a camouflage, your putting to much faith in chance, and this is just one creature, what about birds?

Though it turns out that theories about the evolution of insect wings are quite interesting, so if you want to tell me about your thoughts on it, go for it.

Let's talk about the wing. My reasoning is same as 1st post. Same logic applies to the wing of the fly.

1/100000000th of a wing is of no advantage. it won't develop towards a full wing because there is no advantage in that direction so natural selection doesn't provide answer to this. Very simple evident clear logical thinking.

And if flies gross you out, we can talk about butterflies.

 

[AskTheFamily]

Proof of a Wonderful Designer and Creator.^

 

[Zoot]

The advantages may be differnet but the direction is towards taller tails right? So it's not the same. However you should address the particular argument.

Exactly! The advantages are different, but the direction is towards the same thing.

Do you agree that a glide is basically an extended jump?

Camouflage is a camouflage, your putting to much faith in chance, and this is just one creature, what about birds?

Bird wings would have evolved differently. Again, the question we would have to ask is:

Before this chain of mutations made flight possible, what non-flight advantage could be provided by the same direction of development? As I understand it, with flight, there are two main theories.

One is that birds evolved from tree-climbing creatures that did a lot of jumping and falling out of trees. Limbs that gave an advantage in controlling a fall would be advantageous, which could result in an ability to glide (more advantageous), and then result in an ability to fly (more advantageous again). The archaeopteryx is an example of a feathered lizard that could climb and glide, but probably not fly.

The other main theory is that limbs providing an advantage in running fast could result in an ability to take off the ground briefly while running, or some downward force with the limbs could provide an advantage in running up trees. I think the other theory's more likely.

The "controlled fall" theory is also a predominant theory in the evolution of insect flight. Some interesting studies have shown that insects with little filaments off the middle of their bodies are 90% better at controlling their falls than when those filaments are removed.

 

[AskTheFamily]

Exactly! The advantages are different, but the direction is towards the same thing.

Do you agree that a glide is basically an extended jump?

Yes I do, but extra skin doesn't give an extra jump... it needs to be in certain way for it to give glide (extended jump).

One is that birds evolved from tree-climbing creatures that did a lot of jumping and falling out of trees. Limbs that gave an advantage in controlling a fall would be advantageous, which could result in an ability to glide (more advantageous), and then result in an ability to fly (more advantageous again).

It's the getting to gliding. You can simply just give gliding because it's advantage to glide.

The archaeopteryx is an example of a feathered lizard that could climb and glide, but probably not fly.

If that;s your example, then it's bad. Because it has huge wings as you can see.

But how did it get those gliders to start with. You just give things gliding stuff, bang, where the begining of discussion and through out, I am always talking about the process of the gliders that would develop to wings.

The "controlled fall" theory is also a predominant theory in the evolution of insect flight.

a 1/1000 wing is totally useless for controlled falling.

And what about a butterfly, why did it go a cocoon, and then learn to fly, by free falling?

 

[Zoot]

a 1/1000 wing is totally useless for controlled falling.

No, it's not. Would you like to see a video of it happening?

Yes I do, but extra skin doesn't give an extra jump... it needs to be in certain way for it to give glide (extended jump).

If you're jumping from branch to branch in a tree, even a little extra skin between the forelimbs and rear limbs will slow your descent a little and give you a bit more control.

It's the getting to gliding. You can simply just give gliding because it's advantage to glide.

Nope, but the same things that make controlled falling easier are likely to make gliding possible. As you put it, different advantages, same direction.

 

[ks777]

I just finished a pretty simple primary school science and technology course at uni, it's not biology or anything, but a lot of it was on evolution and such. I thought it was pretty stupid how they gave us examples of microevolution and said macro was the same thing, just with more time when they're completely different.

On day one she told us that the earth, us, and everything in it originated from dust... that's pretty hard to believe. And every living thing today, all had to come from a single cell... I personally find that impossible to believe, even after billions of years of mutation, isolation and the fight for survival. I feel some people like thinking there's nothing bigger than them, and no one to tell them what to do.

Anyway, here's an interesting video on a muscle and it's reproductive method. It implies how without the so called 'mutated' bait it produces in the first place, there would be no reproduction and it would be extinct.
Origin of Species Video

 

[Zoot]

ks777,

That video's a good example of what someone I know called the "Just Look At It!" argument.

The argument goes a bit like this.

1. Here is a fish.
2. Just look at it!
3. Would you look at it?!
4. Just look at that thing.
5. Yep, gotta be God's doing!

There are variations, sometimes with kittens or leaves or whatever.

 

[AskTheFamily]

No, it's not. Would you like to see a video of it happening?

Zoot, ok forget 1/1000th, at point before it;s something that can cause any slight movement in air, it's going to be what? Beofre it can cause any control in air, reducing any impact to ground, what would it be? And what that thing it would be of advantage, and how would that get to a thing that has some flight control.

Go ahead show a video of it happening, show 1/1000th of a wing have a control. I say 1/1000 because there needs to start a very small basis to the wing, some cells growing, but what is it? Nothing. nothing usefull at all.

This is the point. I calling it a wing, but it's not a wing, not glider, whatever that thing is, developing to something that can glide, it's useless.

If you're jumping from branch to branch in a tree, even a little extra skin between the forelimbs and rear limbs will slow your descent a little and give you a bit more control.

No it doesn't give you more control, it needs design before it can do that, simply adding flesh doesn't give more control. Your making up stuff.

Nope, but the same things that make controlled falling easier are likely to make gliding possible. As you put it, different advantages, same direction.

No man as usually you make jumps. There is a long phase before there is any control falling for a fly or butterfly, and it's never going to happen, because all the inbetween to that, is going to be useless.

Just think abotu the butterfly, as usually, your talking of advantage of a stage, but all the inbetween to that, you don't talk about it.

 

[Zoot]

The video is here: http://www.canopyants.com/Bristletail.mov

Beofre it can cause any control in air, reducing any impact to ground, what would it be? And what that thing it would be of advantage, and how would that get to a thing that has some flight control.

Perhaps it was a feeler, off to the sides. And if you ask where that came from, you're getting down to the point where there was just randomly a small change that gave a small advantage - microevolution.

No it doesn't give you more control, it needs design before it can do that, simply adding flesh doesn't give more control. Your making up stuff.

No, I'm not. It's simple aerodynamics. If your son has slightly more webbed hands than you do, he'll have an advantage at swimming. It doesn't need design, it's just physics. More surface area means more resistance.

People wearing wingsuits have more control in their skydiving, and wingsuits are little more than adding webbing to increase air resistance and make it so that moving limbs will alter the fall - just like increased skin between limbs does.

No man as usually you make jumps. There is a long phase before there is any control falling for a fly or butterfly, and it's never going to happen, because all the inbetween to that, is going to be useless.

Studies of insects today demonstrate that you are wrong about that. You don't need wings to have a demonstrable improvement in fall control. Simple outgrowths give an advantage.

 

[jacks]

If long tails and skins flaps are so great, why didn't we evolve with them?

 

[Zoot]

If long tails and skins flaps are so great, why didn't we evolve with them?

We didn't spend as much time falling out of trees as other animals have.

Interestingly, when large birds settle in islands with no ground predators, they often evolve to become flightless, because flying costs so much energy, and there's no point if nothing's going to eat you.

 

[AskTheFamily]

A wing on a fly is not to the sides, it's on the top. So growing some width things on side cannot have anything to do with it. I

And it's the same with gliders that become wings, some extra areo dynamicness won't lead to design of a glider.

also mentioned other issues aside from the wing issue but that was the center of discussion.

Even if extra skin did help jumping, it's whole different thing for it to ever get the design of gliding we were discussing. You can't simple assuming one stage, then bam the next, and assume somehow inbetween there was a way to it. If you think about the matter, you realize, a gliding state, it needs to be designed in that way, ok some extra skin, but still it's without heading to the design. The Design of something that glides takes a stage, and there is really no inbetween that going to it, becasue up till then, it's not adding to gliding. Extra skin then will just lead to extra skin, but no gliders.


Like a wing of a fly, something on the side, that reduces it's fall, and you then assume a wing is possible which is on the topc. This is not rational thinking at all.

And you have bees, there super fast wings, and so on and so forth. And the very least, I hope I have opened a way to reflect over creation different then we are taught in education.


Anyways, I'll let you have the last say. I think as long you can say some sort of concept of advantage, even there is no transition from that, to the next stage, you will assume it's possible even if it's irrational. And when something like an ear is shown that it must be designed, it's easy to just say, it needed no in between stage. There is so many things aside from the wing, it's the whole concept of how to analyze things.

 

[jacks]

Having fallen out of numerous trees, both the skin flaps and the tail would have been most advantages! It certainly would make me a better predator and easier to evade capture from hungry lions or even 1/10th of lions.

 

[IzzyPop]

A wing on a fly is not to the sides, it's on the top. So growing some width things on side cannot have anything to do with it.

Who said the wings had to stay in the same place? Mutations can change placement of structures as well as size. Not to mention that any addition of foils, whether top or sides, will increase control in a free-fall.

 

[IzzyPop]

Having fallen out of numerous trees, both the skin flaps and the tail would have been most advantages! It certainly would make me a better predator and easier to evade capture from hungry lions or even 1/10th of lions.

Some children are born with tails or webbing. We surgically remove them now days. Looks like the designer keeps tinkering or just forgot to throw out those earlier designs.

 

[ks777]

ks777,

That video's a good example of what someone I know called the "Just Look At It!" argument.

The argument goes a bit like this.

1. Here is a fish.
2. Just look at it!
3. Would you look at it?!
4. Just look at that thing.
5. Yep, gotta be God's doing!

There are variations, sometimes with kittens or leaves or whatever.

I don't remember saying that.

Your argument reminds me of the "I don't understand how the rules of evolution could apply to something like that muscle, so I'm going to ridicule his argument and not mention or rebuke anything that was said in the video" argument.

It's a real organism, the only way it can reproduce is if spores are planted into certain fishes lungs. Without the bait to lure the fish and make it's mouth open, how has it survived for millions of years until that the species 'mutated' the bait? Not to mention different muscles replicate different fishes, so it couldn't be a 'one off' chance thing that just so happened to look like a fish, just so happening to lure in the real fish. just look at it. Are you looking at it? Yep! Gotta be God's doing

 

[ukgrace]

AskTheFamily, may I ask who told you that evolution was impossible? was it someone who knew what they were talking about or was it someone who wanted you to believe in God?

 

[jacks]

KS77 said:

Your argument reminds me of the "I don't understand how the rules of evolution could apply to something like that muscle, so I'm going to ridicule his argument and not mention or rebuke anything that was said in the video" argument.

It's a real organism, the only way it can reproduce is if spores are planted into certain fishes lungs. Without the bait to lure the fish and make it's mouth open, how has it survived for millions of years until that the species 'mutated' the bait? Not to mention different muscles replicate different fishes, so it couldn't be a 'one off' chance thing that just so happened to look like a fish, just so happening to lure in the real fish. just look at it. Are you looking at it? Yep! Gotta be God's doing /quote]

KS77

Obviously the clam didn't start by having a little fish like bait, it evolved that bait. For eons it projected a stick like structure, but that didn't work, then for another few million millennium it mimicked an eel, but that simple scared the bass away. Finally after billions of years it got a nub of a minnow like structure that neither helped nor hindered it, this then evolved into the fully developed clam we see today. Simple!
By the way I hope KS doesn't stand for Kitten Squeezer..