Did we re-evolve after the comet that killed all the dinosaurs?

[griffinsavard]

My question was directed towards your disbelief in wing evolution. Can you stick to a single line of thought long enough to see if it is credible? Why do you disbelieve in the evolution of wings?

Because, while sitting outside this morning a humming bird came up to my flowers. :kookoo:

Hummingbirds are birds of the family Trochilidae, and are native only to the Americas. They are known for their ability to hover in mid-air by rapidly flapping their wings 15–80 times per second (depending on the species). Capable of sustained hovering, the hummingbird also has the ability to fly backwards, being the only group of birds able to do so[1]. Hummingbirds may also fly vertically or horizontally, and are capable of maintaining a position while drinking nectar or eating tiny arthropods from flower blossoms. Their English name derives from the characteristic hum made by their wings. Wikipedia

I believe that baby was designed. :rotfl:

Hummingbirds are specialized nectarivores (Stiles, 1981) and are tied to the ornithophilous flowers they feed upon. Some species, especially those with unusual bill shapes such as the Sword-billed Hummingbird and the sicklebills, are coevolved with a small number of flower species.Wikipedia

Forget the chicken and egg. What came first the specialized nectarivores or the ornithophilus flowers they feed upon? :crackup:

 

[ThePhy]

Because, while sitting outside this morning a humming bird came up to my flowers. :kookoo:

Hummingbirds are birds of the family Trochilidae, and are native only to the Americas. They are known for their ability to hover in mid-air by rapidly flapping their wings 15–80 times per second (depending on the species). Capable of sustained hovering, the hummingbird also has the ability to fly backwards, being the only group of birds able to do so[1]. Hummingbirds may also fly vertically or horizontally, and are capable of maintaining a position while drinking nectar or eating tiny arthropods from flower blossoms. Their English name derives from the characteristic hum made by their wings. Wikipedia

I believe that baby was designed. :rotfl:

Hummingbirds are specialized nectarivores (Stiles, 1981) and are tied to the ornithophilous flowers they feed upon. Some species, especially those with unusual bill shapes such as the Sword-billed Hummingbird and the sicklebills, are coevolved with a small number of flower species.Wikipedia

Forget the chicken and egg. What came first the specialized nectarivores or the ornithophilus flowers they feed upon? :crackup:

I see an interesting article about how hummingbirds fly, followed by you claiming they must have been designed. That means so far you have presented your own personal disbelief as evidence (which we already knew). Is that it? Just your incredulity?

 

[laughsoutloud]

Griffensavard writes
"How can traits be passed? Hebrews have circumcised their children for thousands of years and you don't see one being born circumcised do ya?"

I see. Well, you do know that in order to inherit something, it needs to be encoded in the genes, right? Cutting off the foreskin does not effect the genes. Therefore, circumcision is not heritable.

This actually proves evolution, right? If circumcision were heritable, then evolution would not account for (at least all) the variation we see.

Lamarkism was an alternative to evolution, and has been disproved... so I am not sure why you are bringing this up.

"Forget the chicken and egg. What came first the specialized nectarivores or the ornithophilus flowers they feed upon?"

They developed together, over time, and became more and more pronounced.

 

[laughsoutloud]

http://www.odditycentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/ice_storm_sculptures2.jpg

The link above is to a great photo of an ice-covered tree. Very artistic-looking.

So was this designed? What is the chances that the water froze in just the right places to make this exact picture? Astronomical, wouldn't you agree?

Or perhaps it is random - the interaction between known natural forces creating something amazing, but random. What are the chances that this exact "sculpture" formed? It is almost impossible. What are the odds that some layering of ice was going to happen, given freezing rain and cold? 100%

 

[dan1el]

How can traits be passed? Hebrews have circumcised their children for thousands of years and you don't see one being born circumcised do ya? :kookoo:

I MUST SAVE THIS FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS.

Edit: Hahaha, it's been almost twelve hours, and I'm still giggling. ^^

 

[GuySmiley]

But evolution is not the ricochet of ping pong balls. The aim is not to get the balls back in the barrel (evolution does not have a specific end in mind). Plus, it does not all happen at once (like an explosion)

That's not the point. The point is that people can have really strong imaginations.

Are you different from your parents? Yes. That's evolution (random mutation / changes / genetic drift). Are you better at anything than the folks around you? If that trait (inherited from your parents, perhaps) is important, then you survive and reproduce, passing that trait on.

So natural selection simply means that those best suited to an environment survive in greater numbers. Over time (lots and lots of time), these changes add up.

Ok then, I'm an evolutionist!!! I still don't believe in descent from common ancestors.

 

[Mr Jack]

So rather than one highly improbably outcome, think of it as many, many possible outcomes, one after another. Now add a selection mechanism (a reason to prefer one outcome to another) - this is natural selection (so it is not totally random).

Wasn't Guy Smiley talking about abiogenesis?

What's the selection mechanism there? Even in principle?

 

[laughsoutloud]

Wasn't Guy Smiley talking about abiogenesis?

What's the selection mechanism there? Even in principle?

Hmmm... you mean, how would various amino acids self-assemble? There was been a good deal of progress in understanding how the assembly could have happened - for example, why life favors left-handed molecules.

But you are right, selection means, by definition, a mechanism for heredity or at least, transfer of genetic material.

 

[laughsoutloud]

That's not the point. The point is that people can have really strong imaginations.

Yes, imaginations are good. Your point?

Ok then, I'm an evolutionist!!! I still don't believe in descent from common ancestors.

Could you explain the evidence,then? For example,why do humans have a gene for producing vitamin C, even though it is broken? Why do rats have the same gene (but it works)? Why do chimps have the same non-working gene that we have?

I think it is because rats, chimps and humans all got the gene from the same common ancestor, but it broke before chimps and humans split, but after chimps and humans split from rats. It is a simple copy error- easy to see how it happened, hard to argue design.

 

[Mr Jack]

Hmmm... you mean, how would various amino acids self-assemble? There was been a good deal of progress in understanding how the assembly could have happened - for example, why life favors left-handed molecules.

Not quite, I mean how did life first emerge - which, most likely involved the self assembly of Amino acids, but doesn't actually have to. And there has indeed been considerable progress; I've been studying it this week. Interesting stuff.

But you are right, selection means, by definition, a mechanism for heredity or at least, transfer of genetic material.

Copying-with-errors? Yes? I agree. I can't see how you could have any mechanism for selection without copying, unless you could have repeated selection events at the same site? I suppose you could have a chain built according to that chains stability, and ability to attract further amino acids. Hmm.

 

[griffinsavard]

Because the termites who built it without air conditioning (whatever you mean by that) were out-competed, or got found and eaten more often, or were more prone to disease. One group of termites started building mounds with AC - by accident. They survived better, and so reproduced more.

It was in the wonders of design post at the end. You must of not read how detailed and complicated a AC system built within the mound. How can blind termites build things? Where does the knowledge come for that? You say an accident but I say design. Not only I say design but the Bible does also:

Job 12:7 But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee; and the fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee:
Job 12:8 Or speak to the earth, and it shall teach thee: and the fishes of the sea shall declare unto thee.
Job 12:9 Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the LORD hath wrought this?
Job 12:10 In whose hand [is] the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind.

You are not a biblical Christian lol if you keep saying evolution made all this stuff. :nono:

 

[griffinsavard]

I MUST SAVE THIS FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS.

Edit: Hahaha, it's been almost twelve hours, and I'm still giggling. ^^

Your evolutionists where the ones who believed this stuff. Lamarkism was thought to be true. They are the ones who believed this stuff not me. You laugh at me for saying something like this but your such an idiot your saying not only did the penis evovle but the entire human came from nothing. The complicated sexual reproductive process came from nothing and no intelligence. I'm not the fool here you churl...

Psa 14:1 [[To the chief Musician, [A Psalm] of David.]] The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, [there is] none that doeth good.
Psa 14:2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, [and] seek God.
Psa 14:3 They are all gone aside, they are [all] together become filthy: [there is] none that doeth good, no, not one.
Psa 14:4 Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people [as] they eat bread, and call not upon the LORD.

:loser:

 

[griffinsavard]

What's you obsession with nothing? A singularity is not "nothing" and that's about as far back as the Big Bang theory can go.

Do you suppose what you see around you is representative of the universe throughout time and space?

Except you still have the uncaused cause, God. But that's OK because it's God, right? Sound and rational thinking there, sport.


Caveat emptor

Says Mr. Man-in-the-sky. :rotfl:

That's right. Those are two completely seperate things. Glad you're catching on.

I do love me some sophy, but science has a slightly higher standard of proof.

Like biology? :rotfl:


It doesn't really matter where you stand, bub. Unless it's with a bag over your head.


I'm sure. Just don't be surprised when people don't you seriously.

You can keep on saying it till your tongue falls out. That doesn't make it so.

Blah, blah, blah, smae old stuff. God has no cause. Whatever has a beginning has a cause. God had no beginning so to say what I believe is the same your wrong. We can trace back to the beginning with the earth. Unfortunately for you evolutionists counting years is a problem :crackup:

 

[laughsoutloud]

It was in the wonders of design post at the end. You must of not read how detailed and complicated a AC system built within the mound. How can blind termites build things? Where does the knowledge come for that? You say an accident but I say design. Not only I say design but the Bible does also:

Job 12:7 But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee; and the fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee:
Job 12:8 Or speak to the earth, and it shall teach thee: and the fishes of the sea shall declare unto thee.
Job 12:9 Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the LORD hath wrought this?
Job 12:10 In whose hand [is] the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind. -

You are not a biblical Christian lol if you keep saying evolution made all this stuff. :nono:

Over hundreds of millions of years, incremental improvements - in spite you your personal incredulity, it fits the evidence better than your explanation.

BTW, this is how human AC works - from swamp coolers (wind blowing over water) to very sophisticated HVAC - incremental improvements over time. Evolution is not without a selection criteria - those termites who built cooler houses survived better than those who did not.

Not impossible - and in any event, given other evidence, not something that happened all at once 6,000 years ago.

 

[laughsoutloud]

Blah, blah, blah, smae old stuff. God has no cause. Whatever has a beginning has a cause. God had no beginning so to say what I believe is the same your wrong. We can trace back to the beginning with the earth. Unfortunately for you evolutionists counting years is a problem :crackup:

This is an assertion that you can't prove - and in any event, not a statement that makes any sense. Did God simply self-assemble? Then why can't matter?

 

[laughsoutloud]

Your evolutionists where the ones who believed this stuff. Lamarkism was thought to be true. They are the ones who believed this stuff not me. You laugh at me for saying something like this but your such an idiot your saying not only did the penis evovle but the entire human came from nothing. The complicated sexual reproductive process came from nothing and no intelligence. I'm not the fool here you churl...

Psa 14:1 [[To the chief Musician, [A Psalm] of David.]] The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, [there is] none that doeth good.
Psa 14:2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, [and] seek God.
Psa 14:3 They are all gone aside, they are [all] together become filthy: [there is] none that doeth good, no, not one.
Psa 14:4 Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people [as] they eat bread, and call not upon the LORD.

:loser:

Lamark offered an alternative explanation to the one put forward by Darwin and Wallace. It was a number of years before scientific evidence and experiment vindicated Darwin, and disproved Lamark. So no, evolutionists did not propose Lamarkian concepts.

If this is your level of understanding of evolution (and your get all your info from creationist apologist sites) no wonder you suspect evolution - you are being lied to by your creationist friends!

 

[griffinsavard]

Griffensavard writes
"How can traits be passed? Hebrews have circumcised their children for thousands of years and you don't see one being born circumcised do ya?"

I see. Well, you do know that in order to inherit something, it needs to be encoded in the genes, right? Cutting off the foreskin does not effect the genes. Therefore, circumcision is not heritable.

Encoded? To encode something means to transfer INFORMATION to a code. First you say 'accident' then you say 'encoded genes.' This is why evolution is not believable. The theory contradicts itself. Irreducible complexity like Behe says disproves you.
For something to be encoded with information their must be an Informer. Someone who designed these things. You study the blue prints of life and then you say 'accident', the only accident around here is with the theory of evolution. :kookoo:

This actually proves evolution, right? If circumcision were heritable, then evolution would not account for (at least all) the variation we see.

Lamarkism was an alternative to evolution, and has been disproved... so I am not sure why you are bringing this up.

"Forget the chicken and egg. What came first the specialized nectarivores or the ornithophilus flowers they feed upon?"

They developed together, over time, and became more and more pronounced.

How did the humming bird develop? We can't even figure out a good hybrid between a plane and a helicopter. The military have produced quite a few worthless air machines in this area. The bird can hover and fly backwards! Its figure eight wing pattern is something amazing, considering one species can beat their wings 80 times per second.
'they developed together, over time' all you can do is guess in this area. :shut:

 

[griffinsavard]

I see an interesting article about how hummingbirds fly, followed by you claiming they must have been designed. That means so far you have presented your own personal disbelief as evidence (which we already knew). Is that it? Just your incredulity?

Wings are very complicated things. Do you still believe as evolutionists did before that the scales evolved into the feathers? How did the wing develop then? How did the bones in birds turn hollow? There exists special oils on alot of feathers how did this happen? If you will picture in your mind a second of what your trying to teach me. You say [or alot of evolutionists say] that the birds came from the dinosaurs. A huge reptilian somehow changed into a little light bird. If this is science, it is science fiction. :wazzup:

 

[Johnny]

...

Do you understand the basics of evolutionary theory?

 

[laughsoutloud]

Griffinsavard writes

Encoded? To encode something means to transfer INFORMATION to a code. First you say 'accident' then you say 'encoded genes.' This is why evolution is not believable. The theory contradicts itself. Irreducible complexity like Behe says disproves you.

I think you need to read a primer on evolution. It might make you feel a bit better about it. Here is a pretty good one. Others may have suggestions as well.

Our genes contain the instructions for making our body, this includes instructions for the foreskin. Removing the foreskin does not alter the sperm cells of the male, so when a circumsized mail reproduces, the instructions for making the foreskin are passed along to his offspring.

Consider a male born without a foreskin, due to a genetic mutation. When that person passes on the mutation, more children are born without a foreskin. Perhaps, over time, many such men exist. Along comes a disease that is transmitted to men with foreskins much more frequently that those without - now, you might see most men without foreskins, and only a few with foreskins.

The issue of who or what designed the genome is a separate issue - you wondered why removing the foreskin wasn't hereditary. I responded that removing the foreskin does not impact the DNA in the sperm cells (so the lack of foreskin is not passed on).

We know, from experiments in labs, that information is added to genes in the process of evolution. Behe has asserted that life is too complex, but he has been unable to demonstrate his claim. He has never provided a revised formula by which we can determine complexity, and no one can provide the scientific community with a list of things that can and cannot be designed.