Birds do it all of the time.
No. I am saying that it could evolve. Birds innately know how to fly. It is heritable. This means the ability to fly comes from DNA. DNA evolves through evolutionary mechanisms.
For a long list of reasons you have already been given. Your refusal to address reality isn’t my problem.
Only to those who aren’t paying attention.
It may be an unfortunate choice of words, but it’s become technical language with distinct meaning. If you’d actually taken biology courses you would know that.
In the 1980s I read some articles that used “pre-aptation”, but it didn’t catch on. Someone like Gould might have been able to coin a term using Greek and it would have taken, but that didn’t happen. You’re welcome, though, to coin a term that is more accurate than “adaptation”, something that conveys that the change is happening before it’s needed/useful, not in response – which is the biggest issue with “adapt”.
So do philosophy, sociology, psychology, construction, dentistry, indeed any specialized field of endeavor.
But it isn’t individuals that are adapting, it’s species. A species is said to adapt because those with seriously detrimental attributes die off and those with a now-beneficial trait prosper so that the overall gene pool has shifted.
No, the problem is that people who didn’t pay attention in biology classes don’t realize they’re not actually speaking the same language.
But there is no “go”. You’re imagining a lizard suddenly having wings or something, but it doesn’t work like that. We know this from species that have been observed undergoing incremental changes in response to environmental changes (or occasionally without any).
Fallacy of incredulity.
If you’re going to insist on asking stupid questions after having been corrected, why should anyone pay attention to you?
Soaring pattern or wing movement?
Not that it matters – your question is based on the assumption that suddenly there’s a whole new mechanism in a generation that the parents didn’t have. That’s ridiculous.
Already explained. Again, repeating questions that have been answered is devastating to your credibility.
And it comes via muscle structure: the first flight made by a young bird uses the most ‘obvious’ movements of the necessary muscles – a sort of path of least resistance.
Sometimes it doesn’t quite work right. A friend once pointed out to me a young bald eagle that was perched on the edge of the parental nest. It sat there for half a minute when suddenly one of the parents swooped down and knocked it off. It managed to glide, but ended up landing on a lower branch and clawed its way back up the trunk to the nest. My friend said that was the fourth time he’d witnessed the same thing, though the young eagle was getting better at gliding. That was shortly before noon; by evening I’d seen this repeat another three times, then on a fourth time that young eagle showed that he’d figured something out from watching his parents: this time instead of gliding to return to the tree, he went out over the canyon there and caught the updraft coming up the coastal slope and went soaring high above, giving cries of triumph as he rose above the nest, above the forest, above the whole 500-foot high mountain.
It wasn’t till the next week that he actually learned full flying; my guess is he kept jumping and soaring and landing and repeating and that process both strengthened his muscles and let him try to imitate his parents. It was pretty awesome the first time I saw all three, the parents and the youngster, jump off the nest and soar upwards on the air currents together, all screeching in triumph.
You are kidding!
So the creatures just have to go to “Body Parts R US” and get the right DNA code for it complete with operating instructions! How can DNA learn or know instructions on flying?
You are so condescending and dismissive! It just can’t work!
You honesty haven’t given it any thought let alone enough to understand what i am driving at.
Just proves you have no idea!
Not all species are communal. Very few birds are communal. Evolution cannot rely on herd dynamics to produce Tigers, Leopards, Cheetahs, just to name some big cats.
That is just naivety or ignorance. There has to be a first time.
You clearly have no idea what I am driving at either. Is it complacency? Or assumption? or just not thinking it through!
It doesn’t matter how slowly you get there, at some point you have to be able to fly/ And there is no mother demonstrating or knocking you off your perch (Which you can’t get to in the first place). You are the first, The only. With a set of wings that need a specific motion Are you trying to say that it is automatic because of the way they were made? How the heck does nature knw where to put the muscles! (And all the other ancillary bits) It is just not feasible!
And as for DNA! It would appear to be the ultimate computer program that just does everything! An impossible creation from fluke!
No. I actually use my intelligence instead of just assuming and going along with the indoctrination.
They are only stupid to someone who cannot see past the hype and euphoria
“We have found it!”
No, it doesn’t actually work.
Time and incrementation does not solve all problems.
Inventing organs and body parts by just fluke is just wishful thinking. You continually claim that I don’t understand evolution. You know the dogma. you just don’t try and criticise it.out of some sort of loyalty to science and scientists.
It boils down to principles, and that would appear to be your achiles heel.
I know you believe in God. Why do you shut him out of creation?
Richard
T, you describe a two part process, variation and selection, which is basically correct. Some of your comments are not however. Life is made up of genes and genes are always changing. Variatio0n takes place because of these changes. A significant percent of human fetuses are stillborn. I once heard the estimate of 25%. pother infants are not viable. This happens because most of the significant changes in our genome do not enhance our viability. This is the first way that “nature” selects
Natural selection strongly implies evaluation and choice. Nature does choose the variations that best enable an organism to adapt to its environment by experimentation. The best survive and flourish. Some of the less successful flourish in different circumstances, but in no way can these events be called chance, in the sense that they are not rational. In no way can mutatio0ns be called neutral in that they make no difference.
Organisms may not try to change their genomes to adept to their environment, but they to migrant at times to find a more favorable environment and I suspect choose a mate that will enhance the ability of its offspring to live in a changing environment. Life forms are constantly interacting with their environment with whatever tool HOD gives them. Humans are blessed to have brains whereby we can consciously interact with our environment.
GOD has created a wonderful, complicated, complex imperfect world for us to exercise our brains on. It must be imperfect or it would be GOD. It must be complex, or we would not be able to understand it.
.
I think this is over simplistic you need another distinction of objective with subjective.
Here are my current thoughts see what you think.
It’s built into the muscle structure.
Fallacy of incredulity.
It’s far more likely that we’ve all given it a lot of thought and some are just getting tired of trying to explain things to someone who refuses to learn anything beyond a pre-middle school level of science.
Being communal has nothing to do with it – which you would understand if you knew the basics of genetics.
Yes – every generation has its first time, and each first time is so indistinguishable from the previous one that the “knowledge” built in through DNA transfers just fine.
Yes – and “flying” is just a tiny, tiny, tiny bit different than gliding.
You do know that birds have nests, right?
The first to be 0.0000000009% different than your parent? No, but the first with your particular 0.0000000009% difference.
What? Do you think that there is only ever one set of parents in a given species? A newborn is not the “only” anything, it’s one of an entire generation.
Yes. Most animals are born with a much better ability to move their muscles properly than humans because the basics are built in.
Nature has been placing and adjusting those muscles through millions of iterations, with tiny changes each time. It’s like having a machine with a million parts and code that governs it. Change one line of code and the behavior changes maybe one millionth from what it was before; change one tiny part and the machine either doesn’t work or does and if it does the code adjusts accordingly – except in living things, the code and the parts are the same thing, with DNA as the “machine code”.
Fallacy of incredulity. It is feasible; it has been observed in some cases and modeled in many more.
No flukes involved – this is, again, middle school science that you refuse to understand.
If that’s true, then there are only two logical possibilities: you aren’t capable of understanding, or you refuse to try to understand. Either of those is sad; my niece grasped how the process worked when she was ten, and her reaction was “God is awesome”.
No, they’re stupid because you refuse to think and learn. The only euphoria comes from seeing the process in nature and watching it work in computer programs – and given that DNA is much more capable and flexible than any human computer program, if it works in a computer model it works in nature.
Yes – incremental change sufficient to get a creature from scaled limbs to wings with feathers has been observed in nature.
Except the computer models show that it does. That’s even more true now that we know just how tiny changes can be just from folding a protein slightly differently (my niece was part of a crowd-sourced project on protein folding).
And just BTW, the computer modeling isn’t a matter of writing a program to match what biologists hypothesize, it’s a matter of writing a program that makes random tiny changes and follows them generation after generation. I watched a program that started with the form of the most primitive fern known and with those incremental variations churned out a multitude of forms, forms that included ones nearly identical to many existing ferns – it even showed several different ways to get from a frond shaft cluster to a trunk of a tree. Every few iterations another program analyzed the forms and eliminated any judged unworkable. One interesting result is that of all the forms generated, versions of them exist in reality, which tells us that evolution “tries” pretty much very possible path.
Stop talking about your imaginary world and talk about evolution, since that is the subject here. Models, based on observation, of the evolution of every major animal organ have been made. No organs were “invented”, they developed from cells that got a mutation to do a slightly different job than others.
No loyalty at all except a tiny bit to people I know. My loyalty is to the observations, the measurements, the math, and the computer models. Those show that the proposed evolutionary pathways are pretty much always viable, and have even answered questions people couldn’t figure out.
If I don’t have the phone number of the head engineer for the team that designed my pickup truck, does that mean I’m shutting him out of my driving? God is found in Creation in its design, and that design by all the evidence is evolution. Denying the evidence is what would constitute shutting God out of Creation!
Waiting to see how epigenetic end up playing a role in it. How well it can affect gene expression or repression.
No, it is not, and if you understood the motions involved you would know that.
Err, that is the most stupid answer you have given yet.
You just can’t see past the here and now.
just because chimps make nests perhaps?
You are just nit trying t undersgtand how things are interlinked or whare your incremations fail.
NO.
it is the difference between a blank age and a single mark. The change is asgronomical, not mminute. The difference between non flight and flight is much more than you can conceive.
Nature has not been placing anything. That would takr intelligence.
Nature cannot “know”. It cannot “place” it cannot “design”, It cannot “understand”.
If that is the case you have just rewritten ToE.
RIchard
Yes Richard,
I for one wholeheartedly agree with you, nature is not capable of anything more than Natural Selection, which can only ever select from existing information, it clearly cannot create new complex information of the kind that is required if evolution were true.
Natural Selection is not evolution, it is merely differential reproduction, nothing more!
Some individuals have more offspring than others through an advantage or just plain chance.
A powerful documentary film, where 15 Ph.D. scientists explain evolution’s fatal flaws—in areas claimed to be its greatest strengths is at present being offered to stream for Free for a period of seven days.
The documentary film, “Evolution’s Achilles Heels” can be accessed through this link:
This film presents very powerful present day scientific evidence that is totally consistent with the Bibles trustworthy historical account of the Creation, the Fall, and the Flood of Noah.
There never was any evolution, it is a falsified theory that is more of a philosophical belief than anything supported by hard evidence (that supports the myriad of changes from microbes into men) through rigorous operational science.
Our audience here is ONE Who is the Living God of the Bible, and our Lord and Saviour. If what I have written here is removed by being flagged as spam, then those who remove it should be aware that He sees all that is done in secret. I pray that the truth will be known by all and the Truth will set us all free. Jesus is Lord, He is our Saviour and our Creator. Praise Him for ever and ever.
God bless,
jon
There never was evolution, and there never was creation. There is only creationary evolution. GOD uses evolution to create.
GOD did not create human beings with the Big Bang. GOD created a universe which created human being through evolution inspired by GOD.
Yes, the point has always been that the evolutionary process is excellent at small changes within species or sub species but has never proven capable of the broader changes needed to develop flight, or change metabolism, or even walk on land,
It is all very well to simulate a creature climbing a tree and then gliding to land but the muscles needed for the two actions are not the same. Furthermore, there is no reason why any creature would climb up and then launch into the air. for the first time. It is all very well once the actions have been established but it is only humans who can conceptualise what flight is. And to claim that gliding derived from leaping and missing or even leaping ahnd instinctively gliding, is to give animals more knowledge and understanding than they would appear to have.
It is almost impossible for humans not to conceptualise or understand, and impose that knowledge onto ToE as if “Nature” has that knowledge and understanding.
It would seem that it is equally impossible to try and look at things with inocence and no cognition. So unless animals have much more intelligence than we credit them to have, Evolution cannot develop flight, or ha e reason to leave the water that has been their home. Humans are curious. It is less certain that other creatures, especially non mammalian, have that capacity.
If you take this down to insects or crustaceans. They do not have a mental capacity at all, as far as we know., so understanding what flight is would be impossible let alone learning to use wings. So how does “nature” know how to fly? or even hunt or hide?
Richard
Consider spider flight: small spiders are small enough that the wind blowing on a thread of silk can carry them around. If you are small enough relative to surface area, your terminal velocity is low enough that you don’t need to be worried about falling; in fact, some insects simply stop flying when they hear a bat and plunge to the ground. Many animals use jumping and gliding as a way to get around, particularly tree to tree. It’s not hard to see how gradual changes can improve gliding ability. What the animal do to steer or otherwise adjust its glide would include increasing ability to move its “wings”, in addition to the longer glides possible with increasing the area of the structures. It doesn’t take very good flight ability to be useful in escaping predators, finding food, moving to new places, etc.
Major changes in metabolism are seen in bacteria evolving in lab and within observed timescales in the wild. They evolve quite fast and have quite varied metabolism, making them more suited for observing. “They’re still bacteria” is similar to saying that evolving from an amoeba to a human is nothing much because they are both eukaryotes - “bacteria” includes a huge range of organisms.
Dear Roger,
thank you for your response to my post, it’s much appreciated!!
If what you say is true, then please consider, why doesn’t the Bible tell us that?
The Bible historical creation account in Genesis is ever so clear that even a very small child can understand the creation message no matter, whether they are a young Israeli reading the text in Hebrew, or a young Scotsman reading KJV, or a young Canadian reading a French translation, or a young Australian or a young person from any other country such as the USA reading NASB version or from Brazil or India or Sweden or anywhere else.
No mental gymnastics are required to somehow squeeze billions of years of imaginary evolution into the Bible. Please Trust the Lord God to clearly say what He means.
Do you honestly believe our Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent God inspired the authors of the Bible to write the Holy Scriptures that wouldn’t be correctly understood by anyone until after Darwin published his disastrous work of fiction, ‘On the Origin of Species’ on 24th November1859?
If you believe that, then it would follow that all people before 1859 had no true understanding of how God created.
But of course our Loving, all knowing God ensured that the Jewish nation throughout the ages since the creation of the world, who had direct access to the information contained in the Holy Scriptures, and most did, would know the Truth about the creation.
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 And the earth was a formless and desolate emptiness, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters. 3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness He called “night.” And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
6 Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7 God made the expanse, and separated the waters that were below the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse; and it was so. 8 God called the expanse “heaven.” And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
9 Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land “earth,” and the gathering of the waters He called “seas”; and God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit according to their kind with seed in them”; and it was so. 12 The earth produced vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, according to their kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.
14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and they shall serve as signs and for seasons, and for days and years; 15 and they shall serve as lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. 17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
20 Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.” 21 And God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind; and God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
24 Then God said, “Let the earth produce living creatures according to their kind: livestock and crawling things and animals of the earth according to their kind”; and it was so. 25 God made the animals of the earth according to their kind, and the livestock according to their kind, and everything that crawls on the ground according to its kind; and God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, “Let Us make mankind in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the livestock and over all the earth, and over every crawling thing that crawls on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” 29 Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; 30 and to every animal of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to everything that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so. 31 And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. Genesis 1
Our Loving God could not be more clear, and '“there was evening and there was morning” in the above opening chapter of the Holy Bible, (God’s Word), that the days of creation are normal days, they are NOT billions of years of violence, struggle and death that makes a mockery of the Truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, my Lord and Saviour.
That will not do, hence with every fibre in my being I am against anything that sets itself up against the Truth of the knowledge of the Gospel that Redeems us from the wages of sin that brought death into the creation, through His precious blood shed on the cross at Calvary.
Praise the Lord Jesus for His Holy Pure Love for us all.
God bless,
jon
Dear David,
But spiders remain as spiders, and bacteria remain as bacteria.
Nowhere in the sense of microbes to man evolution is there any evidence of the big ‘uphill’ changes that is required to occur, if evolution were a real process.
Clearly, evolution cannot even begin to explain how the incomprehensibly complex specified information arose from the alleged first single cell in the alleged primordial soup to the massive biodiversity of vastly different forms of life on Earth that we now observe.
It’s time to face the plain and simple reality, evolution is a FALSE TEACHING!
I’m truly sorry but I must be honest here, to do otherwise would be betraying you, myself and my Lord and Saviour Jesus.
It is a sad indictment of our society in the ‘world’ in this present age that many people that see through the deception of evolution and call it for what it is, will be ridiculed, censored, have posts removed etc., but all that doesn’t change the Truth that evolution is a vile deception as is the blatant deception of deep time that are both false beliefs of the ‘world’ at this present time, and the world will not tolerate any dissent whatsoever, from those false beliefs.
18 “If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. 19 If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you. John15: 18-19
God bless,
jon
Do you think that a spider understands any of those things?
Now look at how a bird lands.
Even a bird such as an Eagle, who spends most of the time gliding, has to both get into the air and land. Both those tasks use every muscle and feather, in or attached to its wings
It’s just so simple! (not)
This is my main crit of ToE (evolution without God) The changes needed involve understanding concepts that, as far as we know, are beyond the capability of simple life forms, let alone those with fully functional brains. We take for granted such ideas a hunting, or hiding, or curiosity, or even identifying. If you watch Nature programs the narrator goes on about strategies to avoid this or catch that as if simple creature actually understand what they are.
A Trap Door Spider is hiding, waiting for its prey! Does a spider know what a second, or a minute is?
We impose our human understanding onto nature. Nature has no understanding.
The complexity of ecology, let alone physiology, is too well tuned to be a product of “random deviations” (IOW fluke!)
I look at the world and see the hand of God. I am not vane enough to decree how God did it. I do not think that the writers of scripture had that information either. But:
God did it. Nature (Or the Universe) is not self made. That, at least, is biblically correct. The details? That is where you will find the Devil.
Richard
Dear Jon,
You say that the Bible is God’s Word, while the Bible says the Jesus Christ is GOD’s Word. John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with GOD, and the Word was GOD.”
The Bible is good, but it is not GOD, so it is not perfect. Jesus Christ is good, and He is GOD, so He is perfect Love. Genesis 1 is good in that it points to GOD as the Creator. but is not true in that it has an inaccurate timeframe of 7 days. If we reject the truth of Gen 1 we lose the truth of Creation. If we reject the truth of science, we lose the truth that science reveals to us. We need both, which is why GOD gives us both.
I was always told that we cannot read GOD’s mind. We cannot really say what GOD thinks. If so how can be say that GOD must have bring the knowledge of the Creation down to the level of a five year old. If so. why do we need to study and go to school? .
If GOD must reveal all truth in Genesis, why did not GOD declare Jesus Christ is Lord also? The GOD’s Truth is not simple. It is not easy. Five-year-olds do not need to know science or theology. They do need to know Jesus and they do. Dumbing down science does not prove GOD’s love for us. Enabling us to understand the Creation does.
Evolutionary change is part of the ancient puzzle of the One and the Many, which philosophy has never solved. GOD gave us the answer in the Trinity, but theology has not fully accepted GOD as Three in One. Darwinian evolution does not answer this question satisfactorily. There are many ways Christianity and science can work together to solve life’s questions, but the denial of the reality of evolutionary change is not one of them.
Praise GOD, Creator, Logos, and Love for all humans.
Thanks for interacting on this framework
I started playing around with this a few years ago after looking into set theory. Cantor Infinites ect. Its just for fun really to see how one could quantize philosophy ( 4 states) rather than binary of real not real.
Now why I say irrational and real as uncountable would pertain to the idea of equal powers. The ratio of integers are simply two things of equal power so they become rational. Not that integers are the same but they can be placed in cardinality with other things that are of the same power.
but once we start with infinity we have a irrational situation as that infinite thing has no equal power as it forms a maximal.
infinite energy= irrational
By all definition God is the ultimate maximal or infinite and cannot be placed in cardinality with anything but God. So we have a set or classification of a real thing that is irrational, it cannot be placed in cardinality.
I would 100% agree with
We could call this potential
Given that we studied the mechanics of flight in both university biology and physics courses . . . no.
Get over your anthropomorphizing! Glaciers placed boulders in the Willamette Valley, rivers place sediments in deltas – you’re playing games with semantics to support your lack of knowledge and your insistnce on anthropomorphizing nature.
It doesn’t have to, any more than a slot machine has to “understand” in order to dump coins when things align.
Okay, biologists, does evolution count on “flukes”?
Right – and putting on brick on top of two others has never proven capable of making a building.
You rely so heavily on argument from incredulity!
Only to those who can’t stop anthropomorphizing everything.
That’s what you keep doing. If you had even the scientific knowledge expected of a middle school kid you could avoid that problem.
Every time I read you repeating this I find myself thinking, “Why does he think God is incompetent?” Roboticists have developed robots that can make choices and invent methods for achieving a goal; the only way your position holds up is if they are more competent than God.
Not just small spiders! I almost hit a thumb-sized one at about 8,000 feet once when skydiving.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.