Let’s not lose sight of the fact that birds were around for millions of years before this bird “Big Bang”.
Upvote
0
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.
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?
Which has nothing to do with the question at hand. We are talking about the evolution of a bird's wing from a reptilian forelimb.can you calculate the chance for a non-living watch to evolve by a natural process?
Modern reptiles do not. However, there is fossil evidence earlier reptilian ancestors had feathers. In other words, that the feather evolved before birds.have you heard about feathers? a reptile dont have feathers.
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?
If this is true then creationists cannot claim that complexity rules out evolution. As Speedwell noted the argument then becomes a logical fallacy based on personal or group incredulity. Congratulations, you have just refuted your own argument!Even a simple mobile organism is too complex even for mathematicians. Even a simple motion requires incredible complexity, thus no math formula for motion.
Thus a simple evolutionary change here, followed by another simple change, then another, and soon a fantastically complex critter appears that was the product of trillions of 'simple' evolutionary changes over gazillions of years.
If this is true then creationists cannot claim that complexity rules out evolution. As Speedwell noted the argument then becomes a logical fallacy based on personal or group incredulity. Congratulations, you have just refuted your own argument!
This is how recursive processes work. It's possible to generate incredibly complex patterns from relatively simple recursive algorithms. The key is to understand the principle of recursion.
This is also why arguments that life forms are too complex to have been formed by evolution fall flat. There is nothing inherently prohibitive about evolution forming such organisms.
What would be a simple algorithm for a horse galloping at full speed while processing terrain and surroundings and commands from it's rider?
I never mentioned odds. You seem to think odds and complexity are the same. Who knows? Your posts are rarely incisive, focused or clear. Muddy thinking produces inconsequential results.I'm not talking about 'odds', I'm talking about applying a math formula to each needed evolutionary change.
I showed you the math once and you said it made your head hurt.I'm not talking about 'odds', I'm talking about applying a math formula to each needed evolutionary change.
I never mentioned odds. You seem to think odds and complexity are the same. Who knows? Your posts are rarely incisive, focused or clear. Muddy thinking produces inconsequential results.
I'm not sure what you're asking here.
I'm talking about evolution as a recursive process to produce an output. I'm not talking about the output in and of itself.
I showed you the math once and you said it made your head hurt.
It's a term describing a certain class of the stochastic processes I tried to explain to you before. One of the perceptual mistakes you may be making is to regard complex biological structures as a long term target for the evolutionary process. But evolution has no long term targets and so if complexity arises it is purely contingent and the "odds" of achieving it are meaningless.I've not heard that term here before.
You're asking a lot of any process outside of special creation when you consider the complexity of organisms.
Huh? You're going to have to clarify what you are talking about.
No, it is not complete--no science is--but no doubt has been cast on it so far.Is evolution a complete science, no questions, missing parts, that might cast doubt on the process?
Is evolution a complete science, no questions, missing parts, that might cast doubt on the process?
It's a term describing a certain class of the stochastic processes I tried to explain to you before. One of the perceptual mistakes you may be making is to regard complex biological structures as a long term target for the evolutionary process. But evolution has no long term targets and so if complexity arises it is purely contingent and the "odds" of achieving it are meaningless.
A simple analogy is this: Everyone knows that the odds against a particular ticked holder winning the lottery are astronomical, but no one supposes that means nobody can win it.
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?