• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.

Some random discussion on evolution...

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by Contradiction, May 16, 2019.

  1. Contradiction

    Contradiction New Member

    70
    +11
    Croatia
    Christian
    Married
    Some random discussion on evolution...
     
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2019
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. Jimmy D

    Jimmy D Well-Known Member

    +5,023
    Atheist
    Married
    You've got a strange idea of what constitutes a short period of time.

    I'm curious as to what novel features birds developed that you think couldn't have evolved in a few million years?

    Edited to add: Your incredulity proves nothing.
     
  3. OldWiseGuy

    OldWiseGuy Wake me when it's soup. Supporter

    +7,408
    United States
    Protestant
    Single
    US-Others
    Just watched a show on horses. It seems that they each have their own unique personality...evolution I guess. Some even prefer human company over other horses. There must be some kind of evolutionary link there as many people prefer the company of animals. ^_^
     
  4. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE Supporter

    +40,436
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    As they say:

    From the goo, through the zoo, to you.
     
  5. DaisyDay

    DaisyDay blind squirrel

    +10,193
    United States
    Unitarian
    Married
    US-Others
    Of course there is. Zebras cannot be domesticated like horses no matter how young you get them.
     
  6. Contradiction

    Contradiction New Member

    70
    +11
    Croatia
    Christian
    Married
    .
     
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2019
  7. Jimmy D

    Jimmy D Well-Known Member

    +5,023
    Atheist
    Married
    (Edit: I apologise for my previous post being poorly worded).

    Did those features evolve in the 10 million years the paper you cited referred to?

    No, they were already present.

    So I’ll ask again, what novel features do you think couldn’t have been produced during the “Big Bang” of bird evolution?
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2019
  8. xianghua

    xianghua Well-Known Member

    +539
    Judaism
    Single
    wings for instance.
     
  9. Speedwell

    Speedwell Well-Known Member

    +11,775
    United States
    Other Religion
    Married
    Why not?
     
  10. xianghua

    xianghua Well-Known Member

    +539
    Judaism
    Single
    because its too complex.
     
  11. pitabread

    pitabread Well-Known Member

    +8,082
    Canada
    Agnostic
    Private
    How do you measure complexity?.
     
  12. Speedwell

    Speedwell Well-Known Member

    +11,775
    United States
    Other Religion
    Married
    Complexity is a mathematical concept. Any argument from complexity which does not have math backing it up is just an argument from incredulity.

    But there is nothing in a bird's wing which is not present in the forelimb of the reptile from which the bird's wing evolved--the same bones, muscles, veins and arteries, etc. Only the relative shapes and proportions of these components are different. What is "too complex" about that?
     
  13. xianghua

    xianghua Well-Known Member

    +539
    Judaism
    Single
    by the chance that such an object can evolve naturally.
     
  14. xianghua

    xianghua Well-Known Member

    +539
    Judaism
    Single
    can you calculate the chance for a non-living watch to evolve by a natural process?

    have you heard about feathers? a reptile dont have feathers.
     
  15. pitabread

    pitabread Well-Known Member

    +8,082
    Canada
    Agnostic
    Private
    There are a number of issues with the OP:

    1) Appears to be implying that evolution should result in a continual and constant state of morphological change. This is contrary with observations, which suggest a discordance between genetic changes and morphological changes.

    2) Compares non-analogous scenarios. For example, the Cambrian explosion was a period 13+ million of years which involved numerous biological forms encompassing a much larger biosphere. In contrast, human evolution of 300,000 years involves a single species. Why the OP thinks that humans should have evolved a new body plan in this time is a mystery. :scratch:

    Similarity, the E.Coli experiment while offering fascinating insights into evolution is also relatively limited biological speaking; again, using a single organism in a limited populations in a controlled environments.

    And no, the 67,000 generations in E.Coli experiment is *not* the equivalent of 1 million years of human evolution given the difference in ecology.

    3) Misconstrues what constitutes something "new" in evolutionary terms. Evolution does not build from scratch; it modifies what proceeded it. Taking whales as an example, they have numerous morphological traits which speak to their terrestrial origins; most notably the fact they still require surface oxygen in-take as they lack the ability to breath underwater.

    Using birds as another example, their wings bear the hallmarks of modified vertebrate forelimbs; they are not a completely novel structure. This among other traits speaks to their ancestral origins as modified theropods.

    edited: to correct length of Cambrian explosion
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  16. pitabread

    pitabread Well-Known Member

    +8,082
    Canada
    Agnostic
    Private
    How does one calculate such chance?
     
  17. pitabread

    pitabread Well-Known Member

    +8,082
    Canada
    Agnostic
    Private
    Funny, because even young-Earth creationists are waking up to the idea that there were feathered dinosaurs: Feathered Raptors: Not the Birds
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  18. pitabread

    pitabread Well-Known Member

    +8,082
    Canada
    Agnostic
    Private
    After all this time, do you still not know the difference between living and non-living things? Do you still not understand that biological evolution only happens to living populations?

    How do you still not know any of this? :scratch:
     
  19. xianghua

    xianghua Well-Known Member

    +539
    Judaism
    Single
    please read again what i said and to what question.

    so what? its stilll a new traits that suppose to evolve from non feather. anyway a hand isnt a wing. unless you are able to fly.
     
  20. pitabread

    pitabread Well-Known Member

    +8,082
    Canada
    Agnostic
    Private
    I did and your response still made no sense, and implies that you still don't know the difference between living and non-living things.

    Bird wings have the same fundamental bone structure as other vertebrates including humans. Wings are merely modified forelimbs.
     
Loading...