What about the DNA evidence?

[[serious]]

So you are saying that the flap on the flying squirrel is linked to the bats wings.

So's law!

Yet scientists say the bat developed longer digits that enabled the stretched out skin to be connected to form a wing. Bats have been found that are fully formed from 60 million years ago. There are still flying squirrels around today. What came first the glider or the wing.

What would prevent such a gliding system from developing into powered flight if a selection pressure was present?

Bats that would have developed longer digits would have found it difficult to climb and walk before they could use them for any flying.

Bat's climb quite well actually.

Trying to fly would have resulted in crashes.

how so?

Evolutionists like to paint this picture but cannot explain how these detailed and complex features like wings could pop out of a creature without being rejected or almost so suddenly that it is hard to believe.

Or something like this could have happened:

 

[stevevw]

Whether the theory of evolution is true or not you cannot deny there is an element of the herd mentality. The longer an individual remains in an academic environment, the less capable that individual is of independent thought. The only way to succeed in academia is to be part of the Good Old Boy Network.

In the academic world, truth is determined by consensus. If ten professors say one thing, and one professor disagrees, the one who disagrees is wrong by definition. That’s why nobody wants to hold the minority opinion.

The point is, there aren’t that many peer-reviewed journals, and their editorial boards are controlled by an elite inner circle of people. We aren’t talking about a great number of people. It isn’t a vast conspiracy. It is just a few people who have spent so much time in an academic environment isolated from reality that they have all acquired the same ideas.

The Conspiracy

 

[[serious]]

No you don't. This story is made up.

Actually, I'll tell you what. I will retract this fully if you merely tell us what animal is the subject of your friends paper.

$10 on the truthasaurus!

 

[[serious]]

Whether the theory of evolution is true or not you cannot deny there is an element of the herd mentality. The longer an individual remains in an academic environment, the less capable that individual is of independent thought. The only way to succeed in academia is to be part of the Good Old Boy Network.

In the academic world, truth is determined by consensus. If ten professors say one thing, and one professor disagrees, the one who disagrees is wrong by definition. That’s why nobody wants to hold the minority opinion.

The point is, there aren’t that many peer-reviewed journals, and their editorial boards are controlled by an elite inner circle of people. We aren’t talking about a great number of people. It isn’t a vast conspiracy. It is just a few people who have spent so much time in an academic environment isolated from reality that they have all acquired the same ideas.

The Conspiracy

Except no. There are lots of peer reviewed journals. There's even handy little rankings of them in the form of their impact factor. There are lots of conflicting ideas floating around. However, no one is debating the color of the sky because it's already settled. The scientific community has no problem with a massive overhaul of their understanding of a concept IF there is data to back it up. Take a look a wave particle duality, the uncertainty principle, and probably a dozen more examples I'll think of lying in bed tonight. Peer review is by no means a perfect system, and there are certainly flaws in the structure of the scientific community, but to pretend that a novel idea can't be introduced when it has a data driven rationale behind it is just plain silly.

 

[stevevw]

Except no. There are lots of peer reviewed journals. There's even handy little rankings of them in the form of their impact factor. There are lots of conflicting ideas floating around. However, no one is debating the color of the sky because it's already settled. The scientific community has no problem with a massive overhaul of their understanding of a concept IF there is data to back it up. Take a look a wave particle duality, the uncertainty principle, and probably a dozen more examples I'll think of lying in bed tonight. Peer review is by no means a perfect system, and there are certainly flaws in the structure of the scientific community, but to pretend that a novel idea can't be introduced when it has a data driven rationale behind it is just plain silly.

But you have to admit there is an element of the boys club involved. Some would go along and not rock the boat as it would put them at odds with the consensus of opinion. It happens in every walk of life whether its politics, religion, The united nations or science boards.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So's law!What would prevent such a gliding system from developing into powered flight if a selection pressure was present?Bat's climb quite well actually. how so?

Or something like this could have happened:

Yes, hypothetical stages drawn on paper that become somehow scientific fact. Yet A, B, C and D are never found, only E.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You seem to be making the mistake that evolution is a random process.

If it is not random, then there is something directing it, and it is funny how only you think it is not a random process.

There is nothing non-random about it.

Are you implying that animals know that in 1 million years the environment is going to be different and so they need to start mutating their genes to get ready for this climate change? Are you implying that the climate change of the earth is a non-random directed event? Are you implying that a disease that occurs and wipes out their preferred food supply causing them to adapt to a new food source was a directed event?
Please, tell me one thing non-random about the climate of the earth, food supply, isolation by geological events, asteroid impacts, volcanic eruptions, etc, etc, etc?

 

[stevevw]

Yes, hypothetical stages drawn on paper that become somehow scientific fact. Yet A, B, C and D are never found, only E.

Even hypothetical wings, how does it fly with the first couple. I can see a crash landing happening and a very disappointed bat. What would be the benefit of fancy webbed flares around their limbs if they couldn't use them for flying. If the bat used flaps for gliding to start with we haven't found anything in the fossils. Why would we see flying foxes today then if they developed that feature over 60 million years ago. Why are there still gliding, are they a bit late in catching their mates or they are still waiting for the mutation to allow them to develop to the next stage. Notice how they draw the first stage with a fair bit of change ie enough web to almost fly. Are they implying that the bat got that amount of web and elongated digits in one go overnight.

But then the bat had developed detailed wings 60 million years ago.

If you apply this to real wings then the same thing happens. Imagine the first couple of stages the poor bird would be flapping away with no hope of lifting off.

 

[Black Akuma]

Even hypothetical wings, how does it fly with the first couple. I can see a crash landing happening and a very disappointed bat. What would be the benefit of fancy webbed flares around their limbs if they couldn't use them for flying.

But then the bat had developed wings 60 million years ago.

If you apply this to real wings then the same thing happens. Imagine the first couple of stages the poor bird would be flapping away with no hope of lifting off.

Go to Google Scholar.

Type in 'evolution of flight in bats'.

Read some of the articles. You should get dozens of articles that delve into the topic.

That should answer your questions.

Of course, I know you won't do that; more than likely, you're just going to go on assuming that absolutely no answers to your questions exist. But I don't want people who are actually interested in the subject getting the impression that your argument is actually a legit point.

 

[[serious]]

But you have to admit there is an element of the boys club involved. Some would go along and not rock the boat as it would put them at odds with the consensus of opinion. It happens in every walk of life whether its politics, religion, The united nations or science boards.

The larger the upset to current understanding, the higher the burden of proof. That sounds completely reasonable to me. If you tell me there is a new supermarket in town, I'll believe you. If you tell me it opened inside the mall, I'm at least going to want to know what store they replaced and be a bit skeptical. If you tell me they opened in an underground volcano lair, I'm going to assume you are full of it unless you show me a volcano in the area, a lair within that volcano, and a supermarket in that lair.

Likewise, if you are trying to build an alternate hypothesis for the origin of modern day species, you need to not just try and fling mud on the current theory, you need to actually propose a testable alternate theory and build a higher degree of evidence for that theory while explaining at least as much as the current theory.

 

[stevevw]

Go to Google Scholar.

Type in 'evolution of flight in bats'.

Read some of the articles. You should get dozens of articles that delve into the topic.

That should answer your questions.

Of course, I know you won't do that; more than likely, you're just going to go on assuming that absolutely no answers to your questions exist. But I don't want people who are actually interested in the subject getting the impression that your argument is actually a legit point.

I have already looked that up. Bat fossils have been found that are 60 million years old and they have fully developed wings. They haven't found its ancestors so they have to speculate.

But just think about it even though you can say it developed a gliding system the two problems i see and always see is
1) At some stage the flaps when first mutated are small and not developed. Unless they popped out in one go at a developed stage that could allow them to fly which would almost be miraculous then they would be of no use.
2) Maybe not so relevant but we have flying foxes around today that glide so its like the cart before the horse. The bat has already developed detailed wings 60 million years ago and yet we have gliders at the same time. So either those gliders are 60 million years late or they have kept the feature because its an advantage. If they have kept them as an advantage then why do they need wings.

 

[Black Akuma]

1) At some stage the flaps when first mutated are small and not developed. Unless they popped out in one go at a developed stage that could allow them to fly which would almost be miraculous then they would be of no use.

You said you looked it up, but if you had, you wouldn't be asking this question. The articles answer it, and they do it without appealing to the miraculous.

Maybe not so relevant but we have flying foxes around today that glide so its like the cart before the horse.

As far as I know, there are no species of fox that have any gliding abilities.

So either those gliders are 60 million years late or they have kept the feature because its an advantage. If they have kept them as an advantage then why do they need wings.

Again, the articles you can find through a simple search will answer these questions. Don't say you've read them if you haven't actually read them.

 

[stevevw]

You said you looked it up, but if you had, you wouldn't be asking this question. The articles answer it, and they do it without appealing to the miraculous.

I have read about them before and how they grew their digits longer. The site you told me about when i Googled scholar and bat evolution it came up with all the genetics info which was quiet involved. This didn't seem to be talking about wings but their DNA.

As far as I know, there are no species of fox that have any gliding abilities.

Sorry i meant the sugar glider which just about looks the same as some bats and also a mammal. There are some bats that are called the flying fox here in australia. We also have the sugar gliders and the platypus which is an evolutionary enigma in itself.

Again, the articles you can find through a simple search will answer these questions. Don't say you've read them if you haven't actually read them.

Is Google scholar a app or something you have to download. Believe me i have spent time researching bats. Maybe not your site but there are other sites. There are also other features like its echo locate that is also interesting in regards to evolution and how it could have developed.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

Is Google scholar a app or something you have to download. Believe me i have spent time researching bats. Maybe not your site but there are other sites. There are also other features like its echo locate that is also interesting in regards to evolution and how it could have developed.

Just look up Google Scholar. It's an aspect of Google search that allows you to look through academic papers, patents, and case law.

 

[Black Akuma]

What's 'enigmatic' about the platypus?

 

[stevevw]

Just look up Google Scholar. It's an aspect of Google search that allows you to look through academic papers, patents, and case law.

I will tomorrow as it is now past 2.30 am here in Australia and im getting a bit tired. I dont think my brain could take it.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

I will tomorrow as it is now past 2.30 am here in Australia and im getting a bit tired. I dont think my brain could take it.

Didn't notice that you were Australian. It is pretty late there

 

[sfs]

I was referring the most prestigious Physicists, not the ones teaching in High School or most colleges whom would lose their jobs if they speak against the Theory of Evolution, by the iron hand of the High Priest Scientists of Evolution who worship Secular Humanism, and these extreme Secularists hold power in academia, and whom would take any tenure whom dare to or not give them tenure, if they do not bow to their God, Evolution., more so today than back then.

No, you weren't referring to the most prestigious physicists, because they're even more dismissive of creationism than the less prestigious ones(*). I asked you for evidence for you claim that physicists overwhelmingly reject evolution. I take it you don't have any?

I have a close friend whom is an excellent Biologists. He made a new discovery of evidence in the Biology of an animal that clearly contradicts The Theory of Evolution. He was not allowed by his higher ups to publish that fact in his paper.

Right -- scientists unwilling to publish something that would revolutionize science and bring immense prestige. You have no idea how scientists think, do you?

Another very top physicist wrote a published paper telling young scientists to stop kissing the ass of evolution in their science Papers, Papers that had nothing to do with evolution.

And the citation for this paper is . . . ?

Now, I can not help seeing that every Christian or religious website has permanent people like you who are pro-evolution, who come and badger Christians, Jews, Muslims, whom all believe in Creation, and badger them like you do, and pooh-pooh their views and arguments. Is this not true. Who asked you to do this? Be honest or lose credibility.

Lose credibility? With whom, you?

If you believe what you wrote, present the precise science evidence that you obviously know that demonstrates The Theory of Evolution. And in detail why you are convinced that evolution is a fact.

Appeals to authority is not acceptable.

Then stop appealing to the (fictional) prestigious physicists.

BTW, I gave you a big piece of evidence why Evolution. For a small protein consisting of 100 amino acids has a 1 out of 10^65 probability of being capable of folding. If it does not fold, it is worthless for living creatures.

I don't know what that number is supposed to mean, but it certainly isn't the probability of a protein folding, since proteins fold spontaneously. (Whether they fold into something useful is a different question.) In any case, calculated probabilities are less interesting than experimental results. Here is a description of a search for functional proteins in a completely random protein library. Out of 6x10[sup]12[/sup] random proteins (each 80 AAs long), 4 had the particular function they were looking for (the ability to bind ATP). Each of the four gave rise to a family of related proteins with small differences but the same function. Your number is many orders of magnitude off. (And not very relevant for most of evolution, since new families of proteins appear pretty rarely in the history of life.)

And tell us why you are on this forum?

and

What business is it yours that we believe in God?

I'm on the forum because I'm a Christian and a scientist and I'm really tired of Christian saying idiotic things about science. I think it's bad for Christianity, bad for science and just plain bad.

My atheist friends agree that Creationism would be true if they knew a God existed. Do you believe in the existence of God, sfs?

Your atheist friends don't seem very logical. Why should the existence of God imply creationism? Most scientists who believe in God (a number that includes me) are not creationists.

(*) Where are these prestigious physicists supposed to be hiding? When I was a physicist, I was affiliated at different times with Yale, Cornell, Stanford and Princeton, and I worked closely with many physicists from CalTech, Berkeley, Harvard, MIT, Cambridge and elsewhere. If any of these guys thought creationism was anything other than claptrap, they sure hid it well.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Is Google scholar a app or something you have to download. Believe me i have spent time researching bats. Maybe not your site but there are other sites. There are also other features like its echo locate that is also interesting in regards to evolution and how it could have developed.

But once again, actual mutational research disproves your theory of natural selection, since in no case has the creation of new genes ever been observed. Mutations are:

1. Harmful,
2. Neutral,
3. or simply delete what already existed or make it repressive.

In all tests the mutated specimen did no better in the wild than the wild types, and almost always fared worse.

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

http://www.weloennig.de/ShortVersionofMutationsLawof_2006.pdf

As for your claimed CCR5 what do the tests actually show?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1275522/pdf/pbio.0030378.pdf

"We also looked at the derived allele frequency (DAF) distribution, which can detect the genetic hitchhiking of variation linked to an allele under positive selection, and found no evidence for selection. All of these tests have limited power, with genotyping data ascertained to favor common shared SNPs and using the chimpanzee sequence for comparison. Therefore, while the results provide no evidence for selection, it can not be ruled out; this could be further explored with sequencing of a large number of chromosomes"

So we find no evidence at all for selection, but of course we can't rule it out because that would disprove your natural selection theory. The most reasonable explanation being that we do know as a fact that mutations can go recessive or delete genetic material, but never create it, that the other races simply lost that allele through mutation, not that one group gained it. This theory would be consistent with all the results, but no, we have to continue to read more pages where it is assumed it was created by selection, even though none such has EVER been observed.

So to be an evolutionists I must walk by faith but call it science. I prefer to walk by faith and call it religion, and keep my science separate, which backs up my faith. The difference is I use science to confirm my faith, not claim my faith is science.

 

[[serious]]

I have already looked that up. Bat fossils have been found that are 60 million years old and they have fully developed wings. They haven't found its ancestors so they have to speculate.

But just think about it even though you can say it developed a gliding system the two problems i see and always see is
1) At some stage the flaps when first mutated are small and not developed. Unless they popped out in one go at a developed stage that could allow them to fly which would almost be miraculous then they would be of no use.
2) Maybe not so relevant but we have flying foxes around today that glide so its like the cart before the horse. The bat has already developed detailed wings 60 million years ago and yet we have gliders at the same time. So either those gliders are 60 million years late or they have kept the feature because its an advantage. If they have kept them as an advantage then why do they need wings.

1. The default position should not be "it was magic"
2. You brought up a challenge as a hypothetical utility of half a structure. wings have utility across a large range of sizes. While we don't know how flying squirrels will continue to evolve (evolution is not prescriptive), one could certainly see how such structures could continue to expand into a wing capable of powered flight. Any such webbing would make the creature more maneuverable in the air as they jump or fall. Larger structures allow gliding, even larger structures allow true flight. The difference between the flaps of skin and fur bats have and the flaps of skin and fur flying squirrels have is one of degree. Nothing more.