T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
201
Why are feathered wings an issue?
That’s what answers are. If someone asks why the sky is blue you teach them the physics of why the sky is blue.
Don’t you want to learn about biology and evolution?
For the record, this is what I was responding to:
You were asking why we don’t see griffins, manticores, and pegasus. I discussed why these would not be produced by evolution. Namely, feathers evolved in the bird lineage, not the mammal lineage. If horses evolved wings they would not involve feathers, just like bat wings do not have feathers. Bats are an example of a mammal lineage that evolved flight, so we would expect horses to also have unique adaptations for flight if it evolved in their lineage. We would also expect two of the already existing limbs to be adapted to flight, just as they are in bats, birds, and pterosaurs. We wouldn’t expect to see a 3rd pair of limbs to evolve as is seen with the pegasus.
As I understood the question about how evolutionary biology explains why there are not possibilities like winged horses - I took it to mean that there are chance events in the history of life - and he doesn’t think that that is sufficient explanation.
Yet that appeal to chance is done in other scientific disciplines - why the Earth has one natural satellite, while Mercury and Venus have none, and the other planets have more than one? The standard explanation for Earth’s Moon is that it was the result of a chance event. *(I don’t know about the two small satellites of Mars. I’m guessing that that is just a matter of chance, and that there is an explanation for the four small planets having as a default no satellites, while the four large gassy planets have many.)
And then there are questions of why particular geological forms happened.
And in genetics, chance is invoked.
Of course, when we get into quantum physics, there is no explanation other than chance, such as why this nucleus split and that one didn’t.
But our correspondent does not make it clear why he accepts some sciences and singles out evolutionary biology.
2 Likes
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
203
That’s a bit like asking why one person won the lottery while another did not. If chance is not a good enough explanation, I’m not sure what is.
Because it in effect turns it into a different kind of literature in a different language that no longer carries the intended message.
Yes, you reading it from a MSWV is the very same thing as trying to make six days mean millions of years – it throws away what the text means and replaces it with something else.
What “both ways”? The text is what it is, not what an alien worldview changes it into. I don’t see a second “way” here.
A bird’s forelimbs changed into wings; that could happen because its ancestor wasn’t really using its forelimbs for much except balance and leaping. Changing to wings improved both of those.
A horse’s forelimbs are needed on the ground. The only changes that will happen that will be favored are ones that would make them better for their use for motion.
Because of body types. Avians arose because the changes were improvements to the use of their forelimbs; any other form would have to do the same. Change from hairy forelimbs to fuzzy forelimbs improved movement ability, change from hairy to short feathers improved it more, and from short feathers to longer feathers still more.
About the only way to get wings on a four-footed creature – i.e. one with all four limbs used on the ground – would be a wild mutation that caused another set of limbs to sprout, and to do so in a way that wasn’t detrimental. That would mean they’d have to start off small, which isn’t likely because the body already has a program for “grow limbs”; you’d need two perfect mutations together to have that result.
Everything in ToE says they won’t occur elsewhere unless it’s in a body type where limbs turning to wings will be beneficial.
For Paul faith rests on knowledge:
Jesus was born of woman
Jesus was crucified and died
Jesus was buried
Jesus rose from the dead on the third day
Jesus appeared to many
Jesus was exalted
He makes clear that if any of these – with a primary focus on the Resurrection – didn’t happen, the whole thing is pointless.
I’ve read the scriptures in five languages and I don’t see the prejudicial way you portray. I read it as the whole that it is, where Yahweh is always gracious and always fighting for our sake.
That’s not what Jesus taught. You are a Christian because the Father drew you to Christ.
Yes you did – it’s right up there! I put it in quotes because you said it.
No, it isn’t. Genesis 1 says nothing about how God created except by the Word. ToE doesn’t say whether God was involved or not.
The last statement contradicts the first two. Logically, this is equivalent to saying that register A has an input value of zero, that register A is not mentioned even, yet that register A cannot have a value.
The same is true of ToE as for these – they have nothing to do with God, God is not mentioned or accounted for. ToE is ambivalent – the causes are known, but the causes of the causes?
This is the second problem: your position is inherently self-contradictory.
Nope – no more than noting that a slot machine uses random numbers means that no one designed it.
Of course He causes them – we just can’t see Him doing it.
Only if we decide to turn it into an issue.
No more than if He causes eruptions, eclipses, or anything else – which of course He does.
The amazing thing here is that you so badly misunderstand evolution (and science in general) that you fail to see what those guys back in our informal university intelligent design club did; they started as atheists but saw evolution as an astoundingly elegant system to get abundance and diversity in life. As I’ve posted before:
A Psalm of the Designer
Evolution declares the glory of God, and the chromosomes in cells proclaim His handiwork! Day to day pours out research, and night to night reveals studies. They have no speech, they use no words; no sound is heard from them, yet their message has gone out to the whole earth, and their words to the ends of the world. He has set a tent for DNA, which sends its messengers out from its chamber like strong men they run their course with joy. Its reach is from the birth of the Earth, its circuit all around it, and there is no life apart from that reach. selah
O Lord, our Lord,
how majestic is your name in all the earth!
You have set your glory within the cell.
When I look at all life, the work of your fingers,
the nucleus and the mitochondria§, which you have set in place –
What is man that you are mindful of him,
and the son of man that you care for him?
You have made them a little lower than the angels
and crowned them with glory and honor.
You made them rulers over the works of your hands;
you put everything under their feet:
all flocks and herds, and the animals of the wild,
the birds in the sky, and the fish in the sea,
all that swim the paths of the seas.
Oh Lord, our Lord,
how majestic is your name in all the earth!
§ or, “the plants and all animals”
Right – I got a degree magna cum laude in science without understanding it.
No, you may have had science courses, you do not at all understand science – something everyone her who actually works in science sees.
If you think that, you never took any serious science courses – upper-level science courses quickly destroy such an attitude. Frak, a decent history of science course, or philosophy of science, demolishes that!
BTW, I have rarely if ever said what I believe about science – all I aim at is to correct your misconceptions and misunderstandings in the hopes that once you understand science and how it works your views might become evident to everyone here. As it is, you make claims about science without backing them up in a scientific manner, while getting basic concepts of and about science egregiously wrong.
And as I learned on debate team, before debating something you have to actually understand it.
Very nice diagram. I got really sick of science texts that started with “Form a hypothesis”. Happily when I was student teaching there was always a bright – and/or puzzled – student who asked, “How do I form a hypothesis?”
Though I will point out that the first two steps are a bit interchangeable.
Or if you said your car needs a fuel filter; that puts you in the environment of auto mechanics.
And using terms right is important! I once listened to two snowboarders talking/arguing about some aspect of coming down a steep slope safely, and though they used words I thought I knew it was plain that I didn’t know the meaning in the environment of snowboarding.
Half of those are “No one’s thoroughly revised this group in the western Atlantic since the genus was described.”, so it’s a little less impressive than it might sound initially.
Or course. Because almost everything you say is wrong.
This isn’t just about theoretical concepts, it’s about checkable facts too.
Like when you say domesticated species can’t survive in the wild.
Like when you say that there can’t be any freshwater flying fish.
Like when you say there is no evidence for speciation.
Like when you say fledgling birds need to be taught migration routes.
Like when you say soft tissues were considered beyond the scope of the fossilisation process in the 1970s.
All of these are demonstrably wrong.
Your words have no value.
Added:
This is wrong too. Birds were first claimed to be descendants of reptiles because someone found a feathered creature that had features of reptiles. Not the other way around.
Taken out of context, maybe. But i ws discussing birds. Birds hae feather. So does the Pegasus (in theory) so, no it did not, because it failed to understand what i was saying.
Brilliant. You go on and on at a tangent and then claim I did not know what I was saying.
You (and him) did not know what I was saying.
I knew perfectly well and, if you knew, you might not agree but you might understand .
Just to clarify.
Birds are claimed to be descendants of dinosaurs because someone found a dinosaur with what looks like feathers. But
Only birds have feathers. That is a fact. So…
Why should a dinosaur have them? And if they could, why was this trait only passed to birds and not to any other line that come from dinosaurs? Or are you claiming that birds are the only descendent of dinosaurs?
Either way
The fact that feather either do not, or cannot be grown by any other type of creature indicates that there is some sort of underlying parameter or “law” that dictates this. There is no scientific reason for that Law or parameter.to exist.
Ok?
What I say is. How do you understand it?
Well you clearly have not even identified it!
So stop preaching or lecturing at me and discuss!
That is just a tangent and not an answer.
See above.
You did not follow my understanding or reasoning, you just jumped. You answered what you wanted, not me. And you assumed that I was wrong. You always assume that I am wrong. You have no respect for my views or my posts.
So, until you stop teaching, or lecturing or judging, you can stuff it.
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
213
If I didn’t value what you say I would just ignore you.
Aren’t you telling the scientific community they are wrong? Aren’t you telling us we are wrong about evolution being science?
What do you think we should do when someone is wrong? Agree with them?
What if we do understand what you are saying and it is still wrong? I’m sure you can understand the views of young Earth creationists, and yet you still tell them they are wrong.
2 Likes
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
214
Because feathers happened to evolve in their lineage. It’s just like any historical process. Why is there a Grand Canyon in the middle of the US, but no Grand Canyon in the UK? It’s just a happenstance of history. It’s how history played out.
You also have to consider contingency. The genomes of species are continually changing. The genomes of the dinosaurs that first started evolving feathers is different than any genome that exists today or any genome that existed before them. The effect of mutations is strongly dependent on the genetic background they occur in. That’s why the same specific adaptation does not repeat because genomes are constantly changing. There is no single mutation that gives an organism feathers in any genome that it occurs in. It’s a whole host of different mutations that accumulate over time, and are highly dependent on the sequence in the rest of the genome.
The other dinosaur lineages did not have ancestors who had feathers, so they could not inherit them. Feathers began evolving in one lineage, and only the descendants of that lineage will have the opportunity to inherit those mutations.
It is also worth mentioning that traits can be lost. For example, whales and dolphins don’t have hind limbs (except for early stages of embryonic development and atavisms). There may have been multiple lineages that share a common ancestor with birds that lost their feathers.
The reason (not law) is vertical inheritance and contingency. Vertical inheritance means characteristics can only be inherited by direct descendants. The reason no mammals have feathers is because none of our ancestors were dinosaurs that had feathers. The other reason, contingency, is that no mammal had a genome comparable to the first dinosaurs that began to evolve feathers.
Language can be a useful analogy. When Europeans first started coming to the New World, none of the people they came into contact with spoke English. Why? If English developed in the British Isles, why couldn’t it also develop in the New World?
The so clled Line of evolution has changed so much over the years.
When I was at collegee all dinisaurs were cold blooded (forgive the term) and then, suddenly there were warm blooded ones.
At one stage mammals were little shrew like creatures who hid from the dinosaurs, then there were other variations.
Dinosaurs all died out/ The birds were supposedly the direct line.
Then there are "old "reptiles who are said to be from the dinosaur lines.
Then…
IOW it has never been decided whether Dinosaure spawned just birds or whether some reptiles are from that lieage. et, etc, etc. So
You claim one thing with the certainty that does not exist.
But besides you are ignoring the rest of the post. That is Why are feather only found in birds? Why can’t a mammal grow feathers?
(Be careful, you might just drop yourself in it with the lineageof mammals and reptiles)
If there is a “law” that governs the growth of feathers, how does that sit with “random” deviations? perhaps they are nota s random as claimed. But if that is so where do these “laws” of what can be grown come from?
So, before you jump. Try thinking outside your little scientific box.
Not quite. You treat me like an annoying fly that you can’t quite swat. You have to answer or my outrageous idea might be taken seriously (The reason I do not put people like you on ignore)
Define wrong. I claim they have not got it (all( right, but that is not the dame thing. I claim they are arogant in their certitude, but that is nt the same thing either.
No I am telling you that the parameters and limitations of evoltion are dfffferent to otherr branches so you have to adjust your conclusions accordingly. It is you who refuses to acknowledge any differeces.
Fist unnderstnad that sciecne may be black & white, but that does not commute to this sort of discussion. IOW Claiming right or wrong is not within your remit. You can claim what science states, but that does not make it right (or wrong) It is you conviction of absolutes that I am challenging.
Unfortunately your answers rarely show that. Usually because I am coming form a different perspective, One that yo are not familiar with or comfortable with.
I can disagree. I can show them an alternative viewpoint. I can explain that viewpoint , but, at the end of the day, it is not my place to say that “they are wrong” and to do so may damage their faith (and Jesus is a little harsh about that)
So Yes, 9 times out of 10 I knw what you think and where you come form, but youu will not even attempt to look from a different perspective. Even in science there are shades of grey. Perhaps thaqt applies to theories as well? IOW you are teaching a “Granny” to suck eggs" and it is offensive.
You cannot force me or anyone to only view from the scientific perspective.
You see that is one of your blanket dismissals. It just is you say) Why?
Right , off you fgo, but
Wy should one genome allow feathers and one not? What is the criteria or difference.? Saying it just is is not even scientific.
Tell me. Have you ever thought beyond what is? IOW why ? What is iit aboouth the different genomes that allows or disallows feathers? And why would that be? IS there a cosmic reason for mammals not to greow feathers?
(Perhaps these are not valid scientific questions?)
But that ignres random deviations. Direct lineage only accounts for a limited conitnuance it does not account for new or refined. if feather appeared once, why can they not appear somewhere else?
You are still talking direct lineage and not evolutionary change. Mendellan heredity is not the evolutionary process, it is perhaps a part, but it does not account for mutation or deviation
Not good enough. You are just waffling. It is not a reason at all. You are deliberately ignoring deviations (mutations) that break the rules of genetic inheritance and form the basis of evolutionary development.
Repeat. Deviation? Why cannot mammalian DNA deviate to form feathers?
I am sorry but you analogies rarely confront the things I am talking about. They may illustrate what you want to say, but they are not answering, they are not relevant to me.
I have avoided analogies for some time now because time and time again they were misunderstood.
Language evolves, yes, but it is cultural not deviations. In truth we have no idea why Brummy is so different from Cockney or Scouse or Geordie. They just sort of developed on their own.
I wonder how many words you now for a bread roll? Bap? Batch? Roll? each is cultural or regional for no other reason than they have become so.
Thank you for coming back less aggressively. I hope I have done the same
Is there a DNA link that is weaker and usually the site of deviation?
Or is there no discernable “reason” why deviations occur, in terms of place or section?
(Analogy.: In computer coding programmers will deliberately place weak coding that will not copy to prevent illegal duplication)
Just Google “types of genetic mutations” and the AI will give you a list of 9 different types of mutations.
As a programmer, I don’t know what you mean by “weak code”. It requires stronger code to prevent duplication, but this doesn’t really apply to DNA. DNA is not code.
1 Like
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
218
What are those parameters and limitations?
What shouild I do if someone is wrong about what the science states?
What should we do if your perspective is wrong?
Because that is what it is.
I explained it in the previous post.
The genomes of the dinosaurs that first started evolving feathers is different than any genome that exists today or any genome that existed before them. The effect of mutations is strongly dependent on the genetic background they occur in. That’s why the same specific adaptation does not repeat because genomes are constantly changing. There is no single mutation that gives an organism feathers in any genome that it occurs in. It’s a whole host of different mutations that accumulate over time, and are highly dependent on the sequence in the rest of the genome.
To use another analogy. It can be like chess. The effect a specific move has on a game depends on the current position of the pieces in that game. There’s no move in chess that is always a good move, such as queens knight to c3. As each game progresses it takes on it’s own characteristics separate from other games. The value of each move is contingent on all the moves that preceded it and the current position of the pieces. So why is knight to c3 only a good move in some games but not others? It’s due to the history of that specific game and the interaction between the pieces.
In biology and genetics the interaction between mutations and genes is called epistasis.
Not all genomes are capable of evolving feathers because the sequence of those genomes are different which results in different interactions between mutations.
What rules of genetic inheritance do mutations break?
Contingency, or epistasis, does consider the mutations. That’s what it is all about (outside of the hokey pokey). A mutation doesn’t exist on its own. A mutation will interact with many other pieces of DNA, and those interactions and their effects depend on the sequence of that DNA. Change the sequence of DNA and you change the effect subsequent mutations will have.
Because it lacks the genetic background to do so. That genetic background existed just once in history, in the dinosaur population that started to evolve feathers. Us mammals evolved hair to serve as an insulator because the genetic background of those early mammals was capable of evolving hair.
3 Likes
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
219
I’m not sure what you mean by “link”, but some mutations are more common than others. For example, CpG mutations are by far the most common type of substitution mutations. They constitute about 30% of the substitution mutations that separate humans and chimps. In this context, CpG means a two base sequence CG.
For example: ATAATTCGTCCTACG
There are two CpGs in that sequence. These are more susceptible because there are enzymes that attach a methyl group to the C in CG. The methylated C is susceptible to deamination which results in a T.
You will notice that there are two bases with a single ring and two bases with two rings. A mutation from a two ring base to the other two base ring (i.e. A to G) is much more common than a mutation from a two ring base to a single base ring. This is because the enzymes copying the DNA tend to mistake one base for another when they have the same number of rings.
The closest parallel I know if is repetitive DNA. For example:
ATTTTAAAAAAAATTATATATATATATATATATATAT
What keeps the two strands of DNA stuck together is complementary base pairing. As stick to Ts, and Cs stick to Gs.
This can also happen on the same strand of DNA if there is similar sequence in two parts of the genome. Think of how plastic wrap loves to collapse into a ball as soon as you remove it from the roll. When the same strand sticks together you can get all sorts of recombination events.
So, you are saying that whenever there is a pair of duplicates the bond between them it is (tends to be) weaker?
Could that be seen as “deliberate” or “Designed” (along with any underlining law, of course) IOW I wonder if there could be a natural reason for such a weakness that would compensate for a Godly one?
After all ToE is basically trying to make the progression without outside (godly) help.
(please do not go back down the rabbit hole of comparisons outside evolution)
This is for discussion, not as an attempt to “prove” Godly intervention.
(I really am trying)
I think it is the best response to ad-hominem babblings like this, which frankly never should have been said in the first place. No escalation, simply return to sender – especially when it fits them far far far better than who they said it to.
Rather well known fact.
Most dinosaurs simply became extinct with nothing descended from them. Birds descended from the small dinosaurs are the only exception.
Easy to do when the gap of ignorance is so vast.
Want to reserve all the preaching to the professionals, eh?
ignorance + refusal to hear lecturing = willful ignorance.
