What about the DNA evidence?

[[serious]]

The flying squirrel has not got wings. This is flaps of skin and fur which are held out by the squirrels limbs. The limbs are still limbs and not wings. It cannot flap or use those gliding aids to go higher. Poor example, there has never been a creature showing the beginnings of wings.

Besides How did it get the flaps of skin. Did they one day suddenly appear or did they gradually appear. If they gradually appeared then at one stage there would have been half as much flap that was on its way to being fully functional. Of what benefit would half a flap be. It couldn't be used for flying and would just be a flabby bit of excess skin hanging at the sides of the creature.

You know what else is a flap of skin and fur between the forelimb and the hind limb?

 

[mzungu]

Even with half a flap, it could still jump further than other squirrels with no flap. It has advantage, so the trait is selected for. Not a massive advantage, but enough that squirrels with half a flap is going to survive more often than one with no or less of one.

Your problem is that you draw a weird distinction - either something is fully functional the at it currently is, or it's useless. That's not the way it works. As long as the feature gives some advantage, it's going to be preferred.

Flying fish are another example of a trait that gives an incredible advantage for survival:

 

[stevevw]

Even with half a flap, it could still jump further than other squirrels with no flap. It has advantage, so the trait is selected for. Not a massive advantage, but enough that squirrels with half a flap is going to survive more often than one with no or less of one.

Your problem is that you draw a weird distinction - either something is fully functional the at it currently is, or it's useless. That's not the way it works. As long as the feature gives some advantage, it's going to be preferred.[/quote

yes but a 1/2 developed flap isn't going to be much different from just jumping. In fact trying to navigate with smaller surface areas would make it harder to keep control if they were in a panic. !/2 developed wings dont work either, they bring no benefit except for getting in the way as they are not functional.

Still doesn't make sense. So your saying because it had reason to jump through the air the genes knew that and changed accordingly. The environment has many influencing factors including epigenetics. We dont know what influence the environment and conditions can have on an animals genetics and how that is passed to the next generation. Some say stress can have a negative affect. Some studies have shown that certain traits and behaviors can be passed on through the genes to the next generation because of what the parent experienced. This can affect them negatively, at least in the short term.

So there maybe other factors that can affect the process of passing the genes on. So if the fox was jumping out of trees and maybe had the need to get away by flying how can this affect the genes. I thought the process of natural selection was random and part chance. A trait is not taken on until the species goes through a period of trial and error over and over again to eventually it finds and takes on a beneficial mutation. But still it is a random process and the species that separates itself from the group and adapts best survives.

Now if this can happen did the foxes genes change in its makeup gradually or in a few short stages or in one stage. I find it hard to believe everything was quick as it suggests some knowing or intelligence in the process. If it happened in stages then surely at one point there would have been smaller flaps just like there would have been smaller wings or part wings. If thats the case then this would be of no benefit and would not be taken on. You can say it may have had some edge but a part formed anything isn't going to work well especially for flying.

Besides what about the critters that were similar to it that were probably in the same situation and didn't develop flaps. They seem to have survived and adapted quite well. It is probably only one or two mammals that have done this. Besides like i said natural selection is random so there is no evidence that shows the genes respond any way in regards to passing on the genes to the next generation. A mutation is an error in the copying of those genes and natural selection needs a random mutation to be beneficial and suit the need for the creature.

As well as all this having to happen and go right at the end of the day it may just be a variation within the same species. One of the mammal fox type creatures grew some flaps and that ability was already there in the genetics of the species. Just like some dogs get droopy skin. This maybe supported because other similar mammals who were in the same circumstances didn't have the need to grow flaps. Nor did any species that was possibly subject to the same conditions. If the genetic process could know That the fox needed wings im sure many would have developed this as it gives them a good advantage.

 

[Heissonear]

Flying fish are another example of a trait that gives an incredible advantage for survival:

You cannot see a Created life form when it is obvious!

And where are the finely-graduated transitional forms leading to this creature?

 

[Black Akuma]

yes but a 1/2 developed flap isn't going to be much different from just jumping.

Even if the flap is only half as long as it currently is, it still offers an advantage. It doesn't have to be a big advantage, just an advantage.

In fact trying to navigate with smaller surface areas would make it harder to keep control if they were in a panic.

You base this on what, exactly?

So your saying because it had reason to jump through the air the genes knew that and changed accordingly

No.

Animals have mutations. In certain situations, these mutations prove useful. Animals that manifest beneficial mutations are selected for over ones that don't.

The environment has many influencing factors including epigenetics. We dont know what influence the environment and conditions can have on an animals genetics and how that is passed to the next generation. Some say stress can have a negative affect. Some studies have shown that certain traits and behaviors can be passed on through the genes to the next generation because of what the parent experienced. This can affect them negatively, at least in the short term.

True. Doesn't really have much to do with what we're talking about, though.

So if the fox was jumping out of trees and maybe had the need to get away by flying how can this affect the genes.

It can't. No one ever said that genes are changed because of what an animal 'wants'. And why are we talking about foxes?

I thought the process of natural selection was random and part chance.

You thought wrong. Again, you really should read what actual scientists say on these things.

They seem to have survived and adapted quite well

Yes, they evolved in different ways. What about it?

I find it hard to believe everything was quick as it suggests some knowing or intelligence in the process.

Who said it was quick?

there is no evidence that shows the genes respond any way in regards to passing on the genes to the next generation

I swear, I read this ten times, and I still can't tell what you're trying to say.

One of the mammal fox type creatures grew some flaps

Okay, seriously, why are we talking about FOXES? The only thing I can figure is that you're talking about flying foxes, but flying foxes aren't foxes, they're BATS. To the best of my knowledge, Fox McCloud is the only fox capable of flight. So, could you please, straighten out your wording a bit, because it's a little hard to understand what you're saying.

. If the genetic process could know That the fox needed wings im sure many would have developed this as it gives them a good advantage.

The genetic process doesn't 'know' anything.

Look, I can't post links yet, but if you're really, really interesting in this stuff, what you should do is:

A-Go to Google Scholar

B-Type 'flying squirrel evolution'

C-Read the second link that pops up: "Fly now, die later: life-history correlates of gliding and flying in mammals"

It should answer your questions and, hopefully, at least let you understand what you're arguing against, here. Will you do that much?

 

[rush1169]

So one day a squirrel was born with a nub of skin that would ultimately evolve into its 'wing'. That nubbed squirrel had some kind of advantage over all other squirrels. Through thousands of successive generations that nub of skin became it's wing having attached itself to front and rear legs and expanding to be just the right size for gliding. Before it became a wing, it was just a flap of skin growing ever so slightly bigger between generations. I wonder which generation figured out they could use that flap for gliding and to what extent. The earlier generations, once they got a brain mutation that told them they could glide further than they could jump, surely fell to their death when their brain said they could jump 100 feet, but because their wings hadn't evolved to full-size were only good for a 10 foot jump. Poor squirrels. I wonder at what size that flap of skin had to be before the squirrel decided to take a leap longer than prior, non-flying generations knew was safe. As this flying skin evolved, then there must have been some other mutation that gave the squirrel the ability to calculate safe jumps based on surface area of the evolving wing. There also must have been some additional brain-mutation that explained to the squirrel how to navigate and 'pull up' just before landing.

Really there had to be the skin mutation along with many brain mutations that gave a non-flying squirrel the knowledge of how to use the skin mutation without falling to his death. Weird how it randomly grew skin big enough to glide and at more-or-less the same time randomly developed the mental ability to know it could glide, navigate while gliding, and know how to land. Good thing that mental ability didn't come first, or many squirrels would have died trying to fly without wings. Good thing the wings didn't come first or many winged squirrels would have died due to all that extra skin it was carrying around for reasons unknown to him. Amazing that the skin randomly evolved along with random brain evolution that told the squirrel how to use it's extra skin safely. Amazing that over the apparent thousands of generations of skinned, yet-not-ready-for-flight squirrels that the extra skin was used for some other survival skill and that its brain randomly evolved to know what to do with the extra, non-flying skin until it became flying skin.

Pretty amazing, huh?

 

[Black Akuma]

So one day a squirrel was born with a nub of skin that would ultimately evolve into its 'wing'. That nubbed squirrel had some kind of advantage over all other squirrels. Through thousands of successive generations that nub of skin became it's wing having attached itself to front and rear legs and expanding to be just the right size for gliding. Before it became a wing, it was just a flap of skin growing ever so slightly bigger between generations. I wonder which generation figured out they could use that flap for gliding and to what extent. The earlier generations, once they got a brain mutation that told them they could glide further than they could jump, surely fell to their death when their brain said they could jump 100 feet, but because their wings hadn't evolved to full-size were only good for a 10 foot jump. Poor squirrels. I wonder at what size that flap of skin had to be before the squirrel decided to take a leap longer than prior, non-flying generations knew was safe. As this flying skin evolved, then there must have been some other mutation that gave the squirrel the ability to calculate safe jumps based on surface area of the evolving wing. There also must have been some additional brain-mutation that explained to the squirrel how to navigate and 'pull up' just before landing.

Really there had to be the skin mutation along with many brain mutations that gave a non-flying squirrel the knowledge of how to use the skin mutation without falling to his death. Weird how it randomly grew skin big enough to glide and at more-or-less the same time randomly developed the mental ability to know it could glide, navigate while gliding, and know how to land. Good thing that mental ability didn't come first, or many squirrels would have died trying to fly without wings. Good thing the wings didn't come first or many winged squirrels would have died due to all that extra skin it was carrying around for reasons unknown to him. Amazing that the skin randomly evolved along with random brain evolution that told the squirrel how to use it's extra skin safely. Amazing that over the apparent thousands of generations of skinned, yet-not-ready-for-flight squirrels that the extra skin was used for some other survival skill and that its brain randomly evolved to know what to do with the extra, non-flying skin until it became flying skin.

Pretty amazing, huh?

No, what's amazing is that you feel compelled to argue against something you clearly know nothing about.

Go to Google Scholar. Go to Pub Med. They have articles that will explain these things quite thoroughly. What you're doing is nothing more than beating up a strawman - it impresses no one.

If you want to debate science, you need to bring up what scientists are actually saying, not what you think they're saying.

 

[mzungu]

You cannot see a Created life form when it is obvious!

And where are the finely-graduated transitional forms leading to this creature?

Where is the high definition photo of you when you were 6 years 15 days 7 hours 56 minutes 20 milliseconds 100 nanoseconds old? Or even better; where are the photos of you on every second of your life from babe to adulthood. You only have a few photos of yourself at different ages? Sorry not enough. Too many gaps. I conclude you are not the same person who grew up from the original babe. You were created (designed) as you are today from the beginning! Case closed.

 

[rush1169]

So a squirrel with a 0.01% 'wing' survived so much better than one with zero wing that its local population all were born with 0.01% wing. Then a generation of squirrels were born with a 0.02% wing and they survived so much better than the generation with 0.01% wing that they took over. Then a 0.03% wing. . . .then a 1% wing was even better. Then a 2% wing was even better. Then a 3% wing was even better. Then a 10% wing was even better. Then a 20% wing was even better. Then a 50% wing was even better. Then a 75% wing was even better. Then a 100% wing was even better. Then a 101% was worse, so it didn't get to stick. Then a 99% wing wasn't quite as good. So, the wing settled in at 100% wing.

Somewhere during the gradual evolution of the wing, it's brain had to also have mutations in the distance calculation, how to use the wing based on distance calculation, and how to flare at landing. Not to mention it needed a mutation that told it it was safe to jump further than it's 'parents'.

If the above is inaccurate, why not just post as simply as possible how it went down?

 

[mzungu]

So a squirrel with a 0.01% 'wing' survived so much better than one with zero wing that its local population all were born with 0.01% wing. Then a generation of squirrels were born with a 0.02% wing and they survived so much better than the generation with 0.01% wing that they took over. Then a 0.03% wing. . . .then a 1% wing was even better. Then a 2% wing was even better. Then a 3% wing was even better. Then a 10% wing was even better. Then a 20% wing was even better. Then a 50% wing was even better. Then a 75% wing was even better. Then a 100% wing was even better. Then a 101% was worse, so it didn't get to stick. Then a 99% wing wasn't quite as good. So, the wing settled in at 100% wing.

Somewhere during the gradual evolution of the wing, it's brain had to also have mutations in the distance calculation, how to use the wing based on distance calculation, and how to flare at landing. Not to mention it needed a mutation that told it it was safe to jump further than it's 'parents'.

If the above is inaccurate, why not just post as simply as possible how it went down?

Just read the Theory of Evolution. If you have ever read a book in your life then it wont be that hard. After all you seem to have a rudimentary grasp of things.

 

[freezerman2000]

subscribing

 

[freezerman2000]

OOOPPPS! I already was..Haven't had my cup of joe yet!

 

[Loudmouth]

The flying squirrel has not got wings.

Yes, it has half a wing which is what was asked for. If I pointed to a fully formed wing then it would not have met the challenge. We were asked for an example of something that was not a fully formed wing, but still had function. That is exactly what I referenced.

 

[Loudmouth]

You cannot see a Created life form when it is obvious!

And where are the finely-graduated transitional forms leading to this creature?

What is the title of this thread?

 

[Loudmouth]

So one day a squirrel was born with a nub of skin that would ultimately evolve into its 'wing'. That nubbed squirrel had some kind of advantage over all other squirrels. Through thousands of successive generations that nub of skin became it's wing having attached itself to front and rear legs and expanding to be just the right size for gliding. Before it became a wing, it was just a flap of skin growing ever so slightly bigger between generations. I wonder which generation figured out they could use that flap for gliding and to what extent. The earlier generations, once they got a brain mutation that told them they could glide further than they could jump, surely fell to their death when their brain said they could jump 100 feet, but because their wings hadn't evolved to full-size were only good for a 10 foot jump. Poor squirrels. I wonder at what size that flap of skin had to be before the squirrel decided to take a leap longer than prior, non-flying generations knew was safe. As this flying skin evolved, then there must have been some other mutation that gave the squirrel the ability to calculate safe jumps based on surface area of the evolving wing. There also must have been some additional brain-mutation that explained to the squirrel how to navigate and 'pull up' just before landing.

Really there had to be the skin mutation along with many brain mutations that gave a non-flying squirrel the knowledge of how to use the skin mutation without falling to his death. Weird how it randomly grew skin big enough to glide and at more-or-less the same time randomly developed the mental ability to know it could glide, navigate while gliding, and know how to land. Good thing that mental ability didn't come first, or many squirrels would have died trying to fly without wings. Good thing the wings didn't come first or many winged squirrels would have died due to all that extra skin it was carrying around for reasons unknown to him. Amazing that the skin randomly evolved along with random brain evolution that told the squirrel how to use it's extra skin safely. Amazing that over the apparent thousands of generations of skinned, yet-not-ready-for-flight squirrels that the extra skin was used for some other survival skill and that its brain randomly evolved to know what to do with the extra, non-flying skin until it became flying skin.

Pretty amazing, huh?

What is amazing is how quickly creationists forget their own claims. Creationists claim that you have to have a fully formed wing before there is any selectable function. Therefore, the wing had to appear all at once if it were to evolve. We have shown that this is completely false. Now we have creationists using the same argument again, but this time they claim that a quarter of a wing could not evolve on the way to half a wing. Your desperation is becoming quite obvious.

 

[stevevw]

Even if the flap is only half as long as it currently is, it still offers an advantage. It doesn't have to be a big advantage, just an advantage.



You base this on what, exactly?

That a half developed wing or fin or flap that are not fully developed are not functional for the purpose of what they were needed for in the first place. So they will not benefit unless the transitions on the way to the wings or flaps were beneficial in some way. But because it has fully functioning flaps already and they work fine then it must either be something they have always had or it is a variation within the species. That makes more sense then trying to say it jumped out of trees then somehow grew flaps to fly for an advantage. It eventually got the right mutation after many many tries so it survived. In the meantime its mate on the forest floor who was in the same situation didn't develop flaps for flying and survived as well because they found another advantage of some sort.

No.

OK so its from a random process or a bit of both. Basically as i understand it mutations which are an error in the copying of the genes from parent to sibling will produce a change in the physical shape of a creature. But that mutation happens as an error so it cannot have any intelligence about knowing what the creature needs. So enough repeated mutations will eventually produce a feature that the creature finds useful to adapt to its environment.

Its almost like a lot of things have to line up to make it happen.

Animals have mutations. In certain situations, these mutations prove useful. Animals that manifest beneficial mutations are selected for over ones that don't.

But like i said if the flying squirrel developed flaps to get a food advantage or an escape advantage or what ever. There were other creatures around that were in the same situation and they didn't need to develope flaps. They survived on the ground ok so im not sure what advantage it would get. If there was such a need to develop this feature for adaptation to survive why have other creatures of the same period, size, diet and environment grown flaps as they were subject to the same things yet they still survived.

True. Doesn't really have much to do with what we're talking about, though.
Yes it does because if our genetics are effected from factors such as life style, stress, diet and our environment it is showing there are other influences at play so its not just about natural selection.

It can't. No one ever said that genes are changed because of what an animal 'wants'. And why are we talking about foxes?

Yeah but thats what evolution implies. The peppered moth changed colour because the trees changed colour. The pakicetus had evidence that it ate fish so it became a whale. They associate a common trait to show how the different species was starting to do certain things that lead to the change.

I agree as far as i understand it natural selection is random and through an error in copying the genes. That mutation will eventually produce a beneficial feature that the animal needs to adapt.

You thought wrong. Again, you really should read what actual scientists say on these things.

I do and this is my understanding. Maybe im not explaining it very well.
So if its not random and part chance what is it then. Natural selection is just that it will select the one that is left or should i say has best adapted. But that adaptation comes from an error in the copying of the genetics. The process will not get it right the first time and will take many times to eventually get it right. Is that not some sort of blind or at least partly blind process that has no intelligence about it.

Yes, they evolved in different ways. What about it?

Well the similar creatures didn't need flaps and they survived alright. Did they develop another different kind of advantage. I would have though the flying advantage was the best. What made one different from the other if they were both in the same boat.

Who said it was quick?

No one said it was quick. You are pulling out little sections of what i have said and leaving the rest out. This is taking it out of context.

I swear, I read this ten times, and I still can't tell what you're trying to say.

There is no evidence to show that a creatures need for an adaptation like flaps can change the genetics so that they begin to produce flaps.

Okay, seriously, why are we talking about FOXES? The only thing I can figure is that you're talking about flying foxes, but flying foxes aren't foxes, they're BATS. To the best of my knowledge, Fox McCloud is the only fox capable of flight. So, could you please, straighten out your wording a bit, because it's a little hard to understand what you're saying.

The picture i was responding to was a flying squirrel with skin and fur flaps stretched between its limbs but i called it a fox a couple of times. It's not a bat, the skin flaps were used for flying not bat wings which are fully developed and intricate wings.

The genetic process doesn't 'know' anything.

I dont mean know as in, " it thinks " but some say genetics can be influenced by an animals lifestyle and stresses. Some evolutionist infer if say a land animal has a need to eat fish to survive so it goes in the water a lot to catch fish. Then it starts to develop web feet and fins ect.

Look, I can't post links yet, but if you're really, really interesting in this stuff, what you should do is:

A-Go to Google Scholar

B-Type 'flying squirrel evolution'

C-Read the second link that pops up: "Fly now, die later: life-history correlates of gliding and flying in mammals"

It should answer your questions and, hopefully, at least let you understand what you're arguing against, here. Will you do that much?

Ok fair enough. My observations maybe simple but sometimes its the basic questions that are the important ones to clarify.

 

[Loudmouth]

Ok fair enough. My observations maybe simple but sometimes its the basic questions that are the important ones to clarify.

You aren't giving us observations. You are giving us bare assertions. For example, you are trying to claim that there is a barrier that prevents the accumulation of mutations. That is a bare assertion. You have not shown us a single piece of evidence supporting this claim.

 

[Black Akuma]

If the above is inaccurate, why not just post as simply as possible how it went down?

Because I'm working double shifts and don't have the time to properly explain this in a way that won't leave gaping holes for sneaky creationists to butcher the explanation.

Go to Google Scholar. Type in 'squirrel flight evolution'. See what the actual argument is. If you're actually interested in arguing the truth and not beating a strawman, that's what you need to do.

 

[Black Akuma]

That makes more sense then trying to say it jumped out of trees then somehow grew flaps to fly for an advantage. It eventually got the right mutation after many many tries so it survived. In the meantime its mate on the forest floor who was in the same situation didn't develop flaps for flying and survived as well because they found another advantage of some sort.

Yeah, that does make more sense...but then, this isn't the argument I posted, but a garbled version of it. For starters, populations evolve, not individuals.

Its almost like a lot of things have to line up to make it happen.

A part of the problem is that you're looking at the result and assuming it was supposed to happen that way. If the flying squirrel hadn't evolved the way it did, it would have evolved into something else.

Did they develop another different kind of advantage. I would have though the flying advantage was the best.

'Best' is sort of a nebulous term. And yes, they can develop other advantages. Flight is a good advantage for a creature that spends a lot of time in trees, but that doesn't mean every creature that spends time in trees is going to develop flight.

It's not a bat, the skin flaps were used for flying not bat wings which are fully developed and intricate wings.

Question: Ostriches have wings. Ostriches can't fly. Are ostrich wings fully developed?

but some say genetics can be influenced by an animals lifestyle and stresses.

Who? Who says that?

Some evolutionist infer if say a land animal has a need to eat fish to survive so it goes in the water a lot to catch fish

Again...who?

 

[stevevw]

You know what else is a flap of skin and fur between the forelimb and the hind limb?

i thought the flying squirrel had skin and fur stretched across its limbs and it glided. Wings have structure that allow it to flap and ascend. They have feathers that grow out from the bones. To say that flaps of skin are like wings is not the same. Like i said this is a feature that is within a species. Some of the similar creatures who were in the same situation as the squirrel didn't grow flaps or wings and survived on the ground. There are many mammals around today that are about the same size and structure such as the possum and the ground squirrel that dont fly. So it didn't grow wings and need to escape anything or get any advantage. This is just variation within a species.