What about the DNA evidence?

[Black Akuma]

Even so its wings were fully formed and wasn't transitional anyway.

I think I asked this question before, and got no answer. Might have missed it.

An ostrich has wings. An ostrich can't fly. Are an ostrich's wings 'fully formed'?

 

[Ursus scientia]

Even so its wings were fully formed and wasn't transitional anyway.

What do you mean by "wasn't transitional"?

Or better still, what is a "transitional" fossil?

 

[sfs]

actually it is technically called "chemical evolution."

Abiogenesis is merely so.

It fits the topic perfectly.

The topic of this thread is the DNA evidence for biological evolution. Chemical evolution and the origin of life are not part of biological evolution, and the DNA evidence is irrelevant to them. So could you please address the subject of the thread?

 

[bhsmte]

The topic of this thread is the DNA evidence for biological evolution. Chemical evolution and the origin of life are not part of biological evolution, and the DNA evidence is irrelevant to them. So could you please address the subject of the thread?

The evidence is too strong for him to go there. Better to muddy the waters as much as possible.

 

[stevevw]

I think I asked this question before, and got no answer. Might have missed it.

An ostrich has wings. An ostrich can't fly. Are an ostrich's wings 'fully formed'?

The ostrich cant fly because of its weight. Even evolutionist says that millions of years ago it came from a bird that could fly and it got fat and lazy. There were no predators after it and it had plenty of food.

Ostriches’ wings reach a span of about 2 meters and are used in mating displays, to shade chicks, to cover the naked skin of the upper legs and flanks to conserve heat, and as "rudders" to help them change direction while running. They also use their wings in the mating rituals.

It has fairly good well developed wings and they are not half formed. Even so it can run fast and has strong legs so it wouldn't need to fly anyway.

 

[Black Akuma]

Even evolutionist says that millions of years ago it came from a bird that could fly and it got fat and lazy.

First off, you later go on to note that the ostrich doesn't need to fly because it can run fast and has strong legs. That doesn't sound like a very 'fat and lazy' creature, does it?

Regardless, I find this line of thinking confusing. If a bird can have wings that aren't capable of flight, but still useful, and you consider them 'fuctional', what would a non-fuctional wing even look like to you? How would you know the 'non-functional' wing couldn't serve similar purpose? I mean, let's say I presented a fossil of a dinosaur with some freakishly short wing. How would you know it doesn't use it's wings for mating, too, thus making it functional?

And also, aren't you tacitly admitting that a creature with wings that aren't capable of flight can still get use out of a wing? By what criteria are you judging a wing 'functional' or not?

 

[stevevw]

First off, you later go on to note that the ostrich doesn't need to fly because it can run fast and has strong legs. That doesn't sound like a very 'fat and lazy' creature, does it?

Regardless, I find this line of thinking confusing. If a bird can have wings that aren't capable of flight, but still useful, and you consider them 'fuctional', what would a non-fuctional wing even look like to you? How would you know the 'non-functional' wing couldn't serve similar purpose? I mean, let's say I presented a fossil of a dinosaur with some freakishly short wing. How would you know it doesn't use it's wings for mating, too, thus making it functional?

And also, aren't you tacitly admitting that a creature with wings that aren't capable of flight can still get use out of a wing? By what criteria are you judging a wing 'functional' or not?

I dont know enough about the ostrich to understand its history and why it uses its wings or not. The main reason they say it doesn't use its wings is because its to big and heavy to fly. They say it uses its wings for other reasons as well but primarily wings are used for flight and it cant because of its weight.

Thats the point the ostrich has fully formed and workable wings but is to heavy to use them. I'm talking about a stage in which the wings would have to go through in the early part of developing wings that wouldn't be functional. The wings would not be baby wings that grow because that comes from a bird that already has wings. The wings would be the first that were developed by the species.

So at one stage the genes would have had to produce partly formed wings not yet fully functional. Otherwise the mother who was wingless would have had to give birth to a baby that would be able to grow fully formed wings in one generation. That would be a big jump and hard to believe. That is verging on a miracle and creation as suddenly the creature has sprouted out a fully functioning feature in one go rather than how evolution say with small incremental stages.

So the first stages would be unusable wings that would have no use not because of another problem with the creature ie to heavy to fly but because they wouldn't quiet be wings yet. There fore it is a non beneficial change that would be more of a hindrance than what it was meant for.

 

[Black Akuma]

The main reason they say it doesn't use its wings is because its to big and heavy to fly.

Who is 'they'? What research are you drawing this from?

Thats the point the ostrich has fully formed and workable wings but is to heavy to use them.

Then they're not workable. If it's too heavy to use its wings, they don't work. How can you say they're functional...when they don't function?

I'm talking about a stage in which the wings would have to go through in the early part of developing wings that wouldn't be functional.

But, in acknowledging that an ostrich can use its wings for things besides flight, you've already admitted that a bird can get usage out of wings even if it can't fly with them. If an early bird can use its wings for mating like an ostrich does, why doesn't that count as it being functional?

So at one stage the genes would have had to produce partly formed wings not yet fully functional

What do you think a 'partly formed wing' would even look like, and why couldn't this 'partly formed wing' be functional? Again, just because it can't fly with the thing doesn't mean it can't use it for something else, thus making it functional. If something has a function, it is functional, correct?

So the first stages would be unusable wings that would have no use not

How can you look at a wing and tell it has absolutely no use whatsoever, especially when there are variety of birds who use their wings for all sorts of things, even if they can't fly?

This argument makes no sense. You clearly acknowledge that a bird can have wings that it can't use for flight but still use for other things, and then you turn around and say that a bird who can't use its wings for flight must be nonfunctional, but you don't say how you know it can't just use it wings for other things.

 

[Black Akuma]

Double

 

[Black Akuma]

Oh, and I just realized - your argument about the ostrich being too heavy to fly is complete nonsense. Roadrunners can't fly either, and they're much, much lighter.

Do road runners have nonfunctional wings?

EDIT: Actually, I did a little digging and it turns out that roadrunners can fly...barely. Their wings aren't well built for it, and they can only do it for less than a minute, tops. So what would you call them? Half-functional?

 

[stevevw]

Who is 'they'? What research are you drawing this from?

Theres are a few varying opinions actually. This is where i got my info and its not the daily mail but an abstract from a scientific research. Some say the ostrich came from a flightless bird like a bustard.
Revealed: The emu and ostrich can't fly because their ancestors became fat and lazy when the dinosaurs died | Mail Online

Then they're not workable. If it's too heavy to use its wings, they don't work. How can you say they're functional...when they don't function?

Yes they are not functional but they are fully developed. We are talking about how the wing first evolved from a creature with no wings. Not a creature who has fully developed wings and can't use them for what ever reason. They are not functional as far as what they were designed and needed for, are they not.

But, in acknowledging that an ostrich can use its wings for things besides flight, you've already admitted that a bird can get usage out of wings even if it can't fly with them. If an early bird can use its wings for mating like an ostrich does, why doesn't that count as it being functional?

But the early bird who would be the first one who is getting the wings from say a reptile wont have the wings in the first place. So we are not talking about full wings that cant be used. We are talking about stubs of wings which to me are no good for anything.

Then you have to start making a case for what the stubby feathered things would be useful for. IF they started out as wings then thats what they will become so they can't be used for anything else along the way. IF you did find something and it was for something else then why did it start to develop wings in the first place. If that something else becomes needed for something else then they are not going to be wings anymore. But that just complicates everything.

What do you think a 'partly formed wing' would even look like, and why couldn't this 'partly formed wing' be functional? Again, just because it can't fly with the thing doesn't mean it can't use it for something else, thus making it functional. If something has a function, it is functional, correct?

But it wouldn't be a fully developed wing yet that could possibly be used. It would be a stub or a sort of wingy thing with some feathers sticking out, i dont know. All i know is it wouldn't be a fully developed wing unless it popped out in a very short time and can be used straight away.

How can you look at a wing and tell it has absolutely no use whatsoever, especially when there are variety of birds who use their wings for all sorts of things, even if they can't fly?

Those other birds have fully developed wings and for what ever reason they cant use them as wings. But they are not stubs or legs or bumps of skin and feathers they are wings. They cannot use them for what they were designed for wings. Thats what evolution says they got wings for wasn't it to use them for flight.

This argument makes no sense. You clearly acknowledge that a bird can have wings that it can't use for flight but still use for other things, and then you turn around and say that a bird who can't use its wings for flight must be nonfunctional, but you don't say how you know it can't just use it wings for other things.

Thats because you are looking at it from evolutions point of view. Evolution says that one creature can change into another different shaped creature. A reptile can grow wings from its legs for example. So they take on mutations that allow them to gradually take on those features that will benefit them with adapting to the environment to survive.

So a reptile that was always running from predators or its food sauce was used up and the only sauce was high up it had to change to survive. So it may have been jumping away from predators and a mutation it took on in one generation was beneficial for elevation of some sort.

Thats why they use gliders as you can get your head around that being a transformation easier to proper wings sprouting out of the sides of reptiles. The flaps of skin were a mutation in one generation and when they jumped they got some elevation and there fore it was taken on.

Somehow down the road that is suppose to turn into wings that flap and have feathers ect. It still doesn't explain the small flaps of skin that would have first came would be beneficial as they would produce ant real advantage to flight. They would have been crashing and losing control as the flaps would not be big enough for any real elevation. So it would not be any advantage and therefore not taken on.

 

[46AND2]

Oh, and I just realized - your argument about the ostrich being too heavy to fly is complete nonsense. Roadrunners can't fly either, and they're much, much lighter.

Do road runners have nonfunctional wings?

EDIT: Actually, I did a little digging and it turns out that roadrunners can fly...barely. Their wings aren't well built for it, and they can only do it for less than a minute, tops. So what would you call them? Half-functional?

Penguins are another example.

 

[stevevw]

Penguins are another example.

Yeah i was waiting for that one. I will have to do some research on this now. When will it end.

 

[Black Akuma]

Evolution says that one creature can change into another different shaped creature.

No, that's what creationists say evolution says. The actual theory proposes nothing like that. Every in every generation is small - no creature ever gives birth to anything that's radically different. It's only through time that the small changes accrue.

A reptile can grow wings from its legs for example

What gave you that idea?

So a reptile that was always running from predators or its food sauce was used up and the only sauce was high up it had to change to survive.

Sauce...you mean 'source'?

So it may have been jumping away from predators and a mutation it took on in one generation was beneficial for elevation of some sort.

That's really not how it works.

The origin and early evolution of birds: discoveries, disputes, and perspectives from fossil evidence - Springer

Maybe reading this will be helpful.

It still doesn't explain the small flaps of skin that would have first came would be beneficial as they would produce ant real advantage to flight.

And here we go again. Why do you assume that, if these hypothetical flaps pose no advantage to flight, that they're completely useless? There are birds, living today, that have wings which don't let them fly, but they still get use out of them. Why couldn't this hypothetical bird do that? Why couldn't it get some benefit from them that allow the trait to persist.

So it would not be any advantage and therefore not taken on.

You know that birds who can't fly with their wings can still use them for other things and find benefits to them. You're arguing with yourself.

 

[createdtoworship]

How is not trusting an untrustworthy person a fallacy?

in a court room, you can't just say....your honor this man is untrustworthy. The same thing in debates. Unless you want fallacy stamped on your forehead. lol

 

[createdtoworship]

Lack of trust is not a fallacy, it's good practice when talking to someone who makes things up.

gradyll, I provided you with a paper that demonstrates that you can have enantiomer and chiral-specific catalysis. So why you're still claiming it's impossible is beyond me.

Anyway, what 46AND2 said. What about the DNA evidence? I'm sure you've seen some of it because there's an awful, awful lot, but why don't you find it convincing?

and you never replied when I said that it takes a laboratory to perform what you state. Chemical evolution was not in a laboratory it was done in primordial soup. Correct?

 

[createdtoworship]

The topic of this thread is the DNA evidence for biological evolution. Chemical evolution and the origin of life are not part of biological evolution, and the DNA evidence is irrelevant to them. So could you please address the subject of the thread?

so how about telling us briefly about why you think the Bible mentions biological evolution- I seen it in your profile.

or

what are your theories about the Gap theory?

which puts death before the fall of man (impossible)

OR

nevertheless lets talk about DNA evidence supporting biological evolution, even though that specifically wasn't specified in the op.

(besides I am done making my point)

 

[sfs]

so how about telling us briefly about why you think the Bible mentions biological evolution- I seen it in your profile.

If you saw in my profile that the Bible mentions biological evolution, you were hallucinating. My profile doesn't say that.

what are your theories about the Gap theory?

The Gap Theory was an attempt to rescue Biblical literalism that became popular around the beginning of the 20th century, when it had become impossible to ignore the fact that the Earth was much older than a few thousand years. Its popularity was aided by its mention in the notes of the Scofield Reference Bible (the Bible I grew up with, as it happens). (Looking online, I see it originated more than a century earlier than that.) Hebrew scholars that I've heard have said that it lacks any basis in the text.

which puts death before the fall of man (impossible)

Impossible or not, death existed long before humans did.

nevertheless lets talk about DNA evidence supporting biological evolution, even though that specifically wasn't specified in the op.

No, let's do talk about the DNA evidence supporting biological evolution, since that's what the OP was asking about. If you don't believe me, ask the poster.

(besides I am done making my point)

Is your point that you're not going to address the DNA evidence for evolution?

 

[bhsmte]

in a court room, you can't just say....your honor this man is untrustworthy. The same thing in debates. Unless you want fallacy stamped on your forehead. lol

In a courtroom, you impeach a witness by showing he is lying and or misleading and they lose credibility.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To help stevevw understand wing evolution there is this video with a young Dawkins:

Prof. Richard Dawkins - What's the good of half a wing? - YouTube