The Evolution and Creationism thread

Why would birds evolve feathers?

Well, it was reptiles who evolved feathers for insulation. And these became birds with feathers.

I'll try to write a longer explanation to insect wings as well.

 

Bubba_the_Genius:
Yes, and I've heard relativity explained. I have not heard a corresponding explanation for the transition between flightless motion and flight.

With respect, just because you have not heard of it does not mean that it does not exist. The point that I was making was that just because something "seems... at first glance" to the uninformed to be incredible does not mean that it is incredible.

Are you expecting me to simply take what scientists say on face value?

Of course not. I expect you to respect that someone who knows much more than you about a subject should at least be given the benefit of the doubt on that subject.

I thought that was contradictory to science's emphasis on on the personal quest for knowledge and understanding.

That is an interesting take on "science". Science is just the generation and empirical testing of hypotheses about the natural universe.

Well, thank you... but neither provides a progression like I was talking about. They have been no less vague than other explanations I've read.

Exactly how specific do you want? Is there some assertion in those "vague" discussions which causes a problem for you? Keep in mind that we do not know, or pretend to know, the details of the actual lineage that lead to avian flight.

Sure, but these proto-birds would have had to develop elementary feathers and wings that at first did not actually help gliding. Now, why would they do that?

As I said before: explain one feature and people can just ask for another. Well, "elementary feathers" are very good for insulation, and pre-avian dinosaurs had them. I have to ask: have you researched this, or thought about it much? I am not being insulting, you might have just proposed a couple of examples off the top of your head (and that is fine), so I don't want to presume that these are ideas that you have already worked on.

I never said it did falsify evolution, but I have the right to question the theory, to question those aspects of the theory that are not answered to my satisfaction.

Don't I have that right?

Of course you do, and I did not mean to imply that you intended to falsify evolution this way. On the other hand, it could easily be taken that way, and I wanted to make it clear that this issue in no way called into question the fact of evolution.

Actually, I've never seen a satisfactory explanation of the evolution of the eye, either. And my objections and questions don't make me a creationist. They only make a skeptic.

I did not say that you were, but it is noteworthy that you have chosen this particular area of science to exercise your skepticism (as creationists do). Science has indicated that masses attract each other, that shared electrons result in bonds between atoms, that cells are surrounded by phospholipids, that animals are made up of cells, that living things have evolved from common ancestors, etc. There is no more mystery to evolution than to any other area of science.

Isn't science all about skepticism?

It is not all about skepticism, but certainly skepticism is an important part of science. That is why it took so much evidence before the common descent of living things was accepted as a fact.

And I appreciate the years of effort put in by scientists, but they're not perfect, either.

Of course they aren't, I am not suggesting that they are. They are people, and people are not perfect. The point is not that scientists are perfect, it is that everything that we know now points to evolution: there is massive overwhelming evidence for it and no evidence against it.

The earlier scientists were wrong about the Earth being the center of the universe (though their theories were workable enough to aid navigation),

First, please explain how these people were "scientists".[blo

 

I've heard the terms before, and I use them here: micro-evolution is the development of variations within the same general type: breeds within dogs, differing beaks within birds, etc. Macro-evolution is the development of all life from a handful of original organisms: fish, apes, birds, and bugs all originating from the same organism.

You say that, "Science is just the generation and empirical testing of hypotheses about the natural universe." And you've compared evolution to to the theories "that masses attract each other, that shared electrons result in bonds between atoms, that cells are surrounded by phospholipids, that animals are made up of cells."

But there's a big difference: the theory of macro-evolution cannot be tested. Thus, I don't think it unreasonable to demand that the theory be watertight.

You might find it frustrating that I continue to ask for explanations about all features of all life, but, dammit, if I'm expected to believe this untestable theory, I should be able to demand such precision.

For example, it doesn't matter whether birds or dinosaurs first had feathers, and whether those feathers initially served as insulators. Those feathers didn't just appear in one generation: it was, the theory goes, a long transition from scales to feathers. Where was the benefit in these transitional stages? What was the benefit in scales that were too thin to offer protection but were not yet feathery enough to offer insulation?

It is the same with flight: regardless of whether powered flight arose from gliding, proto-wings had to start developing BEFORE they helped either.


You are exaggerating here, not to mention misrepresenting. Please provide references to support these allegations.

You're ignoring history: In the 1970's, scientist predicted an oncoming ice age. In the 90's forward, we've heard nothing but global warming. I am looking for specfic references, but this is historical.


You have yet to point out any "weak links" in the theory of evolution, I have not assumed that you are any kind of creationist, and I have not suggested that you should accept the theory of evolution on faith. On what do you base these allegations?

What the hell am I doing now, asking legitimate questions about flight, feathers, and echolocation?

You have assumed I was a creationist: "I realize that you are sincere, but it is frustrating to have creationists make the argument (again and again) that since they do not see how it could have happened then it must not have happened."

And you have assumed that science should be taken on faith: "There is a subtle arrogance in assuming that scientists who have devoted whole careers to the study of such things could be so stupid as to have missed the allegedly obvious problem with evolution." There is an equally subtle arrogance in insinuating that their long careers make them infallible.

 

I never Avian biology, but don't flightless birds have pretty much useless wings (at least for flying, I understand they may have other purposes)?
Bubba_the_Genius:
True, but these wings are generally underdeveloped. If I understand the theory, macroevolution requires that birds slowly develop wings with perhaps aerodynamic feathers before they even start gliding or flying. What I don't understand is the reproductive advantage of such a development.

I am not sure what you mean by "the theory", but macroevolution does not require "that birds slowly develop wings with perhaps aerodynamic feathers before they even start gliding or flying".

Peez

 

Bubba_the_Genius:
But I believe "free-thinking" scientists and skeptics take this dark spot of Catholic history to stereotype modern Christians

You seem to be implying that no ""free-thinking" scientists and skeptics" are modern Christians, which is of course not true. As I have explained to creationists again and again, one does not have to abandon Christianity (or Islam or Hinduism, etc.) to accept the scientific fact of evolution.

-- that we are spoon-fed what we believe and accept those things blindly.

I know some people who think of Christians that way, but most scientists I know do not think of Christians that way at all, and of course some are Christians.

The humor and the irony comes in when it becomes clear that they blindly cling to their own beliefs, from evolution to global warming.

You are merely assuming that people are "blindly clinging" to evolution, even though you do not know what they know. Further, comparing "evolution" to "global warming" betrays great ignorance about science. Evolution, as discussed by Darwin, is both a pattern and a mechanism. The pattern is that populations of organisms have evolved by descent with modification from common ancestors. This is a scientific fact. The mechanism is basically mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift (there is more to it). This is the theory of evolution. Note that "theory" here does not mean ?unsubstantiated guess', it means a complex of explanations, based on reasoning and evidence, that explains a range of natural phenomena.

Read again Peez's response and you might just find an outrage there -- an outrage that I would dare question the conclusions of science.

I neither felt nor expressed such outrage. As I explained earlier, the conclusions of science can easily be wrong. There are many questions that cannot even be addressed by science, and even those that can are only addressed in terms of natural explanations (clearly, if there are supernatural interferences then science will be incorrect). Finally, scientists can, and do, make mistakes. Thus any scientific fact is tentative, and all conclusions of science may be wrong: that the earth orbits the sun, that most matter here is made up of atoms, that life has evolved from common ancestors, that masses atract each other, etc.

Peez

 

Bubba_the_Genius:
Read again Peez's response and you might just find an outrage there -- an outrage that I would dare question the conclusions of science.

p_atch:
i cant find any sense of outrage in Peez's post at all

Bubba_the_Genius:
Look again:

I realize that you are sincere, but it is frustrating to have creationists make the argument (again and again) that since they do not see how it could have happened then it must not have happened. There is a subtle arrogance in assuming that scientists who have devoted whole careers to the study of such things could be so stupid as to have missed the allegedly obvious problem with evolution.

I didn't make the argument that macroevolution is false, but he assumes that I am doing just that.

No, I have not, nor can I see where you get the idea that I am outraged at all, let alone outraged that someone might have dared to "question the conclusions of science". I have simply pointed out that it is arrogant to assume, as you appear to, that you know something that these scientists do not. Note that I am not saying that you must assume that scientists know everything, I am saying that I might know something about engineering that an engineer doesn't, but if I didn't understand how a certain bridge could stand I would not state that the engineer was basing it on some kind of "faith".

Peez

 

Bubba_the_Genius:
I've heard the terms before, and I use them here: micro-evolution is the development of variations within the same general type: breeds within dogs, differing beaks within birds, etc.

This is the sort of definition that creationists are prone to give, the sloppy use of the vague term "type" is a bit of a give-away. In fact, "microevolution" is a rather vague term, but it is defined by Evolutionary Biology, Third Edition by Douglas J. Futuyma (Sinauer, 1998), a standard evolutionary biology text book, as:

A vague term for slight, short-term evolutionary changes within species.

Note that the terms "slight" and "short-term" are vague, there is no clear distinction between microevolution and macroevolution.

Macro-evolution is the development of all life from a handful of original organisms: fish, apes, birds, and bugs all originating from the same organism.

Again, a creationist's definition. Here is Futuyma again:

macroevolution A vague term for the evolution of great phenotypic changes, usually great enough to allocate the changed lineage and its descendants to a distinct genus or higher tyaxon.

Note that the term "great" is vague, there is no clear distinction between macroevolution and microevolution. Also, note that common descent is not a necessary part of macroevolution. You can use your definitions if you wish, of course, but they are not the ones that scientists use. Thus, I have no idea of how your "macroevolution" might occur, I am not familiar with it.

You say that, "Science is just the generation and empirical testing of hypotheses about the natural universe." And you've compared evolution to to the theories "that masses attract each other, that shared electrons result in bonds between atoms, that cells are surrounded by phospholipids, that animals are made up of cells."

Those are not theories, perhaps we should define this term as well. There are several definitions, but the one used for scientific theories is:

the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

(Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition)

But there's a big difference: the theory of macro-evolution cannot be tested.

I assume that you mean the hypothesis that life has evolved by descent with modification from common ancestors? You are incorrect, as even a cursory study of the field would show you. Note that it must be empirically testable, that is testable by observations of the natural universe. To be empirically testable, there has to be some potential observation which would falsify the hypothesis. That is, there has to be some way that we could, in principle, disprove the hypothesis. I can, with little effort, come up with numerous ways in which common descent could be, in principle, falsified: unambiguous human fossils in precambrian rock, an animal with the head of a bird and the body of a lion, an insect more genetically similar to a horse than to another insect, the list is very long indeed.

Thus, I don't think it unreasonable to demand that the theory be watertight.

If you mean ?proved beyond any doubt', then nothing in science is ever "watertight" (leaving alone for the moment that common descent is not a theory). Science never proves anything (in the sense of established with absolute certainty). Science can only disprove. If we attempt to disprove a hypothesis, with credible experiments, thousands of times we eventually accept the hypothesis as a fact. This is what has happened with common descent.

You might find it frustrating that I continue to ask for explanations about all features of all life, but, dammit, if I'm expected to believe this untestable theory, I should be able to demand such precision.

No, I find it frustrating that people imply that because we don't know the answer to a particular ques

 

I believe the conversation has strayed significantly, but I still stand behind what I originally said: I am, at the moment, skeptical of the theory of evolution as the single mechanism for the diversity of life on this planet. The application of the theory to show how flight could have developed is insufficiently specific, and you haven't even addressed two of the other features I mentioned: echolocation and the metamorphosis of insects.

Until the theory adequately explains all these things, I will remain skeptical.

 

Until the theory adequately explains....remain skeptical.

Truely, an enlightend statement. And a multi-faceted one in this debate.

 

Bubba_the_Genius:
I believe the conversation has strayed significantly, but I still stand behind what I originally said: I am, at the moment, skeptical of the theory of evolution as the single mechanism for the diversity of life on this planet.

I have no doubt that this is true. Knowing as little as you do about evolution, it is perhaps not surprising that you might find it difficult to understand how certain features might have evolved.

The application of the theory to show how flight could have developed is insufficiently specific,

I have asked you for clarification on this point: exactly what are you asking for? Note also that your issue is with the theory of evolution, not the fact that living things have evolved by descent with modification from common ancestors.

and you haven't even addressed two of the other features I mentioned: echolocation and the metamorphosis of insects.

I don't see the point. First, you have not clarified what would constitute a sufficiently specific explanation for flight, so it seems pointless to waste time on these other features. Second, I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain possible scenarios for the evolution of the thousands of features that one might bring up. If I can reasonably explain a feature that you were "skeptical" about, that should at least suggest that you are being "skeptical" even when there is an evolutionary explanation. Third, the scientific fact of evolution does not rest on there being any mechanism of evolution. The evidence for evolution remains whether or not one accepts the mechanisms of the theory of evolution. Fourth, you haven't addressed all of my points, so I am not sure how keen I should be to address all of yours.

Until the theory adequately explains all these things, I will remain skeptical.

That is your choice, of course. Each of us may remain sceptical of atoms, evolution, the solar system, etc. On the other hand, the scientific evidence is clear: the common descent of living things is a scientific fact, and the theory of evolution is the only scientific explanation available.

Here is a hypothetical evolutionary lineage of avian flight that is more specific:

In the forest of the part of Pangea that would later be called Asia, 238,948,224 years ago, there was a population of animals that I will call norks. Norks were reptiles. Unlike birds, norks had a long tail with vertebrae, teeth, a small flat sternum, a relatively small brain case, no beak, sternum not enlarged nor with a keel, pelvic bones not fused with any vertebrae, some digits of the forelimbs not fused, and no horizontal processes on ribs. Although not birds, norks did share some features with them: feathers, light hollow bones, a forelimb that may be rotated and extended forward, tarsal bones fused to the metatarsals, a fused sacrum, bird-like feet, and a brain case larger than that of many other reptiles (all of these latter features were found in the theropod reptiles). These norks had a mean mass of 1.000 kg, with a standard deviation of 0.1000 kg. They were bipedal, very similar to the theropod dinosaur Compsognathus: forelimbs about half the size of hind limbs; a long neck, snout, and tail. These animals were covered by brown feathers except on the claws of the forelimbs and the feet of the hind limbs.

Norks spent most of their day on the forest floor, digging for insects with their forelimbs. They would also, using all four limbs, climb trees to find insects and to avoid predators. At night they would rest in the trees. Norks matured after one year, females laid four eggs per year in nests in trees, and lived four years.

A new predator started to invade this forest 238,948,223 years ago. This predator hunted in the trees, and was able to eat a great many norks. Norks were not adapted to tree-dwelling predators, but certainly fled when attacked. While fleeing, those that fell from the lower branc

 

interesting

is there a generally accepted reason as to why no reptiles or any non bird type things with feathers are around today?

everything i can think of that has feathers also has wings

is there anything to suggest that wings could have evolved before feathers ?

-patch

 

p_atch:
interesting

is there a generally accepted reason as to why no reptiles or any non bird type things with feathers are around today?

Most species do go extinct, and there has been competition from mammals (the only "reptiles" with hair are mammals). Probably more importantly, at the end of the Cretaceous Period (65 million years ago) about 76% of species went extinct (based on the fossil record). In fact, whole groups of species went extinct: 47% of genera and 16% of families (taken from Table 25.1 on p. 713 of Futuyma's Evolutionary Biology, Third Edition).

everything I can think of that has feathers also has wings

Ditto (for living things). Also, everything that I can think of that has hair also is "warm blooded". Everything that I can think of that has a dorsal hollow nerve cord also has a notochord (at some stage of development). Everything that I can think of that has mitochondria also has a membrane-bound nucleus. The branching pattern of evolution tends to produce such situations.

is there anything to suggest that wings could have evolved before feathers ?

Winged insects have been around since about 325 million years ago, and pterosaurs were flying about 210 million years ago. It seems unlikely that avian wings came before avian feathers, since there were wingless dinosaurs with feathers and feathers make up virtually the entire flight surface of even primitive bird-like creatures.

Peez

 

My biggest problem with creationism is that it just says things happened. It does not give any explanation as to how things happened or why aside from God did it. The models of creationism do not say how God did things. Did he make the molten core of the earth first keeping it warm, then add the layers? Did God make all animals and see that they worked well together, or did he see that if He would not make animal X, then animal Y would rule. How did God make each animal? In what order? I want a specific blow by blow account for what was created, and simply saying 'it was' is not enough for me. How can anyone say that poof, practically magic, is a better explanation than evolution (or the creation of the planet which is not the point of this debate) which at least tries to explain those processes mentioned above?

 

Did I kill this debate or something?

 

Here is a little story that is funny regarding evoution and creationism.

Back when I was in High School, in biology, it was time to study evolution. But before we began our teacher told us of the different theories going at the time. He said there was evolution, creationism, and the alien theory. Funnily enough we spent more time on the alien theory than we did creationism.

 

Science is what happens when people look at the world and try to determine what happened by exhausting possibilities through empirical investigation.

Creationism is what happens when people read the Bible, believe it to be wholly true without evidence and predeterminately refuse all other possibilities.

"Creation Science" is what happens when Creationists (see above) try to twist the meaning of the Bible's words so that they appear to fit the facts... typically without any of their own actual empirical investigation.

Which methodology you favor depends on what kind of person you are:

Do you want to believe?

-or-

Do you want to know?

 

I believe you have a false interpetation and image of the world around us. In all actuality Evolution is the belief that all we know and are surrounded by is the result of freak chance without flaw to make a well oiled and operating universe despite million to one odds.

The absence of outside supernatural influences is absurd to even consider because non thinking orgnaic material can somehow make outself?

You've seem to just confused me even more.

When you put all the predictions and legitmecy of events in the Bible to the test you come out short of things to pick and attack at. Try it.

<[-]> Saber

 

I often see the words 'Evolution' and 'chance' used in the same sentence. It's not really accurate to say evolution is all about everything being up to chance.

The fact that all Zebras have black and white stripes today is not purely the result of chance. The inital occurence or stripes in a herd of horses was a chance occurence, but the thousands of years of natural selection is the exact opposite of 'chance' ... it's deliberate control caused by the nature of the environment (in this case, the fact that striped horses are harder for lions to see).

 

But evolution answers more questions than outright creationism. What if I want to figure out how animals were made, the specifics, not just generally how? One answer would be a long chain of natural selection and forced or convenient improvements of a species of which it is possible to go into a ton of detail and give reasons why it happened; the other would be just that God did it. Which is a better answer? Which is more satisfying? Which one can have more evidence for (Would God give any convincing evidence of something that is undeniably his work?)?

Evolution is a better theory. I am not saying it is right or wrong, but it is better IMHO for the reasons I gave above. These arguments only work if you take the Bible 100% literally. If you say that God worked through evolution and the bib bang, then this argument does not work obviously.

When you put all the predictions and legitmecy of events in the Bible to the test you come out short of things to pick and attack at. Try it.

I don't care about the events of the Bible, I want to know how everything happened. How specifically were two people turned into pillars of salt. How specifically did zillions of loafs of bread come out of one basket? How exactly did a person walk on liquid water? How exactly did God make the world? How did He make every creature? God is all powerful, so He should be able to at least give an explanation to those things that we would understand beyond 'I did it.' Yeah, some may be miracles, but what does that change? Until those questions are answered, I feel my faith would be blind because neither I, nor the Bible can really explain those things. To me, science and specifically for this debate, evolution is better than religion IMHO for the soul reason that things like that are not explained.

Also, why is this thread not evolution and big bang (or what ever) so that the evolutionists can cover everything that creationism does?

 

The Big Bang is actually an aid to creationits. It states that at the very beginning, all matter in the universe was condensed into a single point the size of a pinhead. This singularity is the divinity or the "God-Complex" as I like to put it. It is what is not YET understood. Could it be "God"?

The soul purpose for mankind to create gods was to explain the unexplained. The gods eventually "evolved" out of existance with increasing knowledge and understanding.

Try going back 5000 years into Egypt and telling the people that Ra (the god of the sun) does not exist and explain what the sun really is. You probably would have been killed.

We tend to view the Universe as an organized, premeditated "creation" designed to exist the way it does. The reality is that the universe exists because of chance (I hate to use this word!).
If you rewind time and hit play, the universe would be different every time but the matter would be the same. Like taking a hand full of pennies and throwing them across the floor...the pattern will always be different but in they are always just pennies.

And don't forget...

If it weren't for that asteroid hitting Earth by chance...humans would have never evolved.

 

Well, they might have. There are an infinite number more random things that have happened since then, and each one could have caused drastic changes. Chaos theory.

Hey, ever see that model of what a dino-man would look like? Pretty cool.

Anyhow...

 

In all actuality Evolution is the belief that all we know and are surrounded by is the result of freak chance without flaw to make a well oiled and operating universe despite million to one odds.

Despite my willingness to give you some leeway because of your age and inexperience in this world, this statement in and of itself betrays a gross lack of knowledge concerning the theory of evolution. Anyone who would make such a statement cannot intelligently and substantively arrive at the conclusion that evolutionary theory is false... By your own words, it is clear that you do not understand evolutionary theory.

It has been said time and time and time again that natural selection, one of several mechanisms for evolution, is the exact opposite of chance. If two people shake a tree to make the apples fall... was it chance that made the apples fall? No, it was the concomitance of two forces acting upon the tree. Likewise, if a given environment squeezes a population to the point of eliminating the vast majority of species not suited for survival in that environment, it is the concomitance of various environmental forces acting upon that population, specifically thwarting the survival of the most poorly-adapted species.

It may be useful for humans to think of god as being the one who makes the mountains move and the rains fall.. but it may also be equally plausible to say the Invisible Pink Unicorn did it. You can believe whatever you like at that point... but knowing requires empirical observation of the facts.

It is estimated that 99 percent of the species that have ever lived on this planet have gone extinct. Does the Bible offer an explanation as to why god did this, much less any reference at all to the existence of these multitudes of species beyond some vague passage alluding to "kinds".

The problem is lack of education. Parents in this day and age are too afraid to talk to their kids about sex beyond stupid euphemisms about birds and bees and the like... What on earth makes anyone think the youth of America are even prepared to comprehend the massive 150 years of accumulated research that continues to grow every day, contributing more and more positive evidence in favor of the theory of evolution.

Where in the past 150 years have the theologians and Biblical Scholars gotten any closer to demonstrating precisely how Creation works, and having the ability to empirically predict Creation's capabilities moving forward?

It's nice to say the Bible made predictions... after the events have already occurred... and especially considering it would be incredibly difficult to exactly substantiate quantifiable data, if any, given in the Bible concering 2000-year old events.

What specific predictions have specifically come true in the 21st century? Any?

Evolutionary theory is making constant predictions as to what we should find if evolutionary theory were true... but those predictions are not darts being thrown at a a wall. They are intelligent hypotheses constructed upon a foundation of mounds of scientific evidence... Something like: "Given that we have observed A, B and C... then we should expect to find D if we look in E."

A Creationist prediction might sound like: "And one day there would be a burning icon." And believers will take such a passage and say, "Look! The Bible predicted the World Trade Center disaster!" Or maybe a buddhist igniting himself on fire... or maybe crosses burning in Madonna's video... or maybe a flaming Mercedes-Benz cruising down 5th Avenue in New York... or maybe a JC icon with flames in it...

Do you begin to understand my difficulty in accepting such arguments from belief?

Evolutionary theory does not depend upon belief... even if some people are stupid enough to believe it is correct before understanding it. Evolutionary theory depends on evidence.

Creation relies entirely upon assuming that the Bible is correct in the first place. No rational person who does not already accept the Bible as literal truth has ever, to my knowledge, conc