Black Akuma
Shot a man in Reno, just to watch him die...
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'?
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.
Even so its wings were fully formed and wasn't transitional anyway.
Even so its wings were fully formed and wasn't transitional anyway.
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?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?
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'?
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?
The main reason they say it doesn't use its wings is because its to big and heavy to fly.
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.
So at one stage the genes would have had to produce partly formed wings not yet fully functional
So the first stages would be unusable wings that would have no use not
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?
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?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 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?
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.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.
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?
Evolution says that one creature can change into another different shaped creature.
A reptile can grow wings from its legs for example
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.
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.
So it would not be any advantage and therefore not taken on.
How is not trusting an untrustworthy person a fallacy?
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?
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?
If you saw in my profile that the Bible mentions biological evolution, you were hallucinating. My profile doesn't say that.so how about telling us briefly about why you think the Bible mentions biological evolution- I seen it in your profile.
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.what are your theories about the Gap theory?
Impossible or not, death existed long before humans did.which puts death before the fall of man (impossible)
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.nevertheless lets talk about DNA evidence supporting biological evolution, even though that specifically wasn't specified in the op.
Is your point that you're not going to address the DNA evidence for evolution?(besides I am done making my point)
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
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?