Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

If a bird developed one feature required for flight without the others, what good would it do and why would this feature be 'selected for' since it gives no 'survival advantage'?

real life wrote:

If a bird developed one feature required for flight without the others, what good would it do and why would this feature be 'selected for' since it gives no 'survival advantage'?

First of all, it wouldn't be a bird until it was a bird. Before that it would be just another creature doing what it had to do to survive.

For example, feathers could be for warmth at first, and later modified for flight. And arms with feathers could be used for sexual display before they were used for actual flight. Or they could be used to make quick turns when chasing insects. All unrelated to flight.

Before you can rule out a sequence of steps which lead to flight, you must first rule out alternate uses for the features which eventually benefitted flight.

I suppose we have to positively rule out ALL POSSIBLE uses before you are satisfied.

chiso wrote:

In the very first flying bird on earth which was Naturally Selected first?

A) Wings
B) Feathers
C) Hollow Bones
D) Avian Lungs

How do you know they weren't all selected for at the same time?

real life wrote:

I suppose we have to positively rule out ALL POSSIBLE uses before you are satisfied.

You simply can't assume that any given feature has only one possible function. Feathers can be used for warmth as well as flight. Wings can be used for gliding before flying. And since it's obvious that a wing can be used to lift a bird into the air, it's also obvious that a smaller wing can be used to make a small creature more maneuverable on the ground. These are not big stretches of the imagination.

Biological morphology is riddled with multiple redundant uses for various structures. This is why Michael Behe's mousetrap example of ID falls apart.

In order for anyone to make the case that specific structures could not have evolved in stages, you need to first prove that precursors to those structures could not have been used for some other function. Otherwise, clearly, the precursors would have been selected for to support the other function.

Why do you assume that you are looking at a 'before' instead of an 'after'?

Imagining an auxiliary use of stub wings such as 'help in making quick turns' or 'sexual attractiveness' are great stories.

No, the burden of proof is on the evolutionist to show that the DISadvantage of losing one's forelimbs is outweighed by the advantage of having one's future progeny eventually being able to fly.

Sure a feature can have more than one function. Provide proof that it actually did. Don't simply ASSUME that it did and guess at one.

rl

Quote:

Why do you assume that you are looking at a 'before' instead of an 'after'?

LAW OF SUPERPOSITION is never wrong. DO you doubt it?

real life wrote:

No, the burden of proof is on the evolutionist to show that the DISadvantage of losing one's forelimbs is outweighed by the advantage of having one's future progeny eventually being able to fly.

There is no advantage for an individual for having 'future' progeny do anything. The only advantage is in what is has now.

Feathers can keep you warm, we know it: Proven.
Flightless chickens flap their wings to escape the farmers kids, and they're damn fast, I know from experience: Proven.
Peackcocks use pretty feathers for sexual display, we know it: Proven.

We don't know if pre-birds actually did use their pre-bird characteristics for these particular things, but we know for certain that they could have. And that's an avenue for selective pressure.

You are trying to use the argument of irreducible complexity to imply that a bird can not evlove because flight characteristics can not evolve in stages because they can not be selected for. But the burden of proof is definitely on you to demonstrate that those characteristics could not have been selected for other functions prior to their use in flight.

real life wrote:

Sure a feature can have more than one function. Provide proof that it actually did. Don't simply ASSUME that it did and guess at one.

We don't have to prove that it did get used that way, all we have to prove is that it could have been used that way, and then we have a path of reducible complexiity, and the implications of your argument are invalidated.

You're copying Behe's arguments, and he already went down in flames (in court no less).

Quit hiding your head in the sand.

Sounds like an argument from silence.

'We haven't found anything prior to this, so there must not be.'

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Tell me again how that addresses the DISadvantage of losing the use of one's forelimbs to eat, climb, etc as this reptile morphs into a bird ?

The immediate disadvantage is obviously greater than any advantage. Just admit it.

rl

Quote:

Sounds like an argument from silence.

'We haven't found anything prior to this, so there must not be.'

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Thats a convenient cop-out when you have nothing to add.
The law of superposition is certainly not silence , especially if you take time to understand its structure. I feel that youve come to the end of your string and are merely retreading old posts.

rl wrote:

The immediate disadvantage is obviously greater than any advantage. Just admit it.

This is totally and utterly wrong.

Say you are Freddy the bacteria. Your host has decided to take antibiotics. Although you are in great danger and will probably die, like the rest of your relatives, a few bacteria have a slim but real chance of becoming "super bacteria", immune to antibiotics. The chance is greatly increased if your host does not finish the course of antibiotics.

When you're body naturally (without antibiotics) builds up against and repels an invader, (a virus for instance) have you 'evolved'?

No.

The potential to repel the invader was ALREADY present within you.

I hear a lot about 'evolving' bacteria, but they are still bacteria, aren't they?

We've gone through millions of generations of bacteria and they're still bacteria.

Scientists can produce huge numbers of generations of bacteria in a relatively short time. And they'll ALL be bacteria.

real life wrote:

When you're body naturally (without antibiotics) builds up against and repels an invader, (a virus for instance) have you 'evolved'?

No.

The potential to repel the invader was ALREADY present within you.

I hear a lot about 'evolving' bacteria, but they are still bacteria, aren't they?

We've gone through millions of generations of bacteria and they're still bacteria.

Scientists can produce huge numbers of generations of bacteria in a relatively short time. And they'll ALL be bacteria.

Your post trivializes how complex bacteria are. It is without doubt that in comparrisson, we (humans) are vastly more complex than a bactria of any variety.

reading your post, you seem to demand that the bactria must become a plankton or a fish for you to be satisfied.

To counter, I'll ask this? when the bactria are given a predictable stimuli (light,oxygen,etc) what kinds of development do they show? They show development in areas effected by those direct stimuli. The bacteria is still bacteria, because the bacteria has stimuli that will seperate genetic anomolies out such as the development of other cellular structures.

you seem to want to see if given enough time, will a mouse develop in a man. The answer is NO. The mouse, and the man share a common ansestrial parent. Follow that tree back far enough, and you find that they all have a the same parent including the bacteria.

The bacteria you are talking about, is not uneveloved, it is very evolved, its simple structure and ability to adapt is what makes it so strong compared to the bactria that doesn't adapt so well.

I don't know why I bother trying to expalin this kind of thing to you. I'm sure, given the result you desire: the bacteria evolving bend bactria, you'd still sit on the same porch.