Jump to content


Photo

The Trouble With Evolution

From Dinosaur to Bird

  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,506 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 23 July 2017 - 02:49 PM

The problem with evolution
From Dinsaur to bird

There is an old Chinese proverb that says a journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step. That is the premise that evolutionists have seized upon.

It seems a bunch of small steps can result in great complexity. But can complexity really happen without intelligence in the mix? And would the random reultant complexity be the kind of complexity evolution needs to design the bird?

We know there are numerous differennces between the dinosaur and the bird. Our view today (we have birds) is of course in hind sight. Because of that it is easy for us to imagine the dinosaur transitioning to a bird as we have a clear goal for our mind to seize upon. We have both a starting point (the dinosaur) and a finishing point (a bird). It is if all we have to do is traverse the numerous small steps from the dinosaur to the bird and unfortunately in our mind it is a straight line. Similarly, if we know where Chicago (the dinosaur) is and New York (the bird) is then we can reasonably plot a journey of small steps between the two destinations.

But the bird, according to evilutionary theory, was not a destination that evo embraced as evo is not concious nor does it have a goal. With that in mind evolution becomes intutively confusing. To go from a dinosaur to a bird by small steps it would seem that those steps must consistantly be in the same direction. That's the way it is in the real world when for example we build a building!

Would the constant change in directions caused by the randome mutation process acually end up in anything functional let a lone a bird that actually flys?



#2 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,727 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 23 July 2017 - 03:52 PM

The problem with evolution
From Dinsaur to bird

There is an old Chinese proverb that says a journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step. That is the premise that evolutionists have seized upon.

It seems a bunch of small steps can result in great complexity. But can complexity really happen without intelligence in the mix? And would the random reultant complexity be the kind of complexity evolution needs to design the bird?

We know there are numerous differennces between the dinosaur and the bird. Our view today (we have birds) is of course in hind sight. Because of that it is easy for us to imagine the dinosaur transitioning to a bird as we have a clear goal for our mind to seize upon. We have both a starting point (the dinosaur) and a finishing point (a bird). It is if all we have to do is traverse the numerous small steps from the dinosaur to the bird and unfortunately in our mind it is a straight line. Similarly, if we know where Chicago (the dinosaur) is and New York (the bird) is then we can reasonably plot a journey of small steps between the two destinations.

But the bird, according to evilutionary theory, was not a destination that evo embraced as evo is not concious nor does it have a goal. With that in mind evolution becomes intutively confusing. To go from a dinosaur to a bird by small steps it would seem that those steps must consistantly be in the same direction. That's the way it is in the real world when for example we build a building!

Would the constant change in directions caused by the randome mutation process acually end up in anything functional let a lone a bird that actually flys?

The steps don't need all be in the same direction. 

 

When we put up a building, there are almost always changes that need to be made.



#3 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,506 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 23 July 2017 - 04:20 PM

Piasan said:

The steps don't need all be in the same direction.

Look at a dinosaur and look at a bird. There are a lot of steps from a dinosaur to a bird. What are the things birds have evolved they don't need?

To get to the bird the majority of those steps have to proceed towards a functioning bird. I can't honestly think of anything on a bird that is extranious. What are the misteps in bird evo? Where is the evidence of misteps? In other words what are the things a bird has that it does not need? Like all the plants and and animals the bird seems perfectly engineed for birdom!

When we put up a building, there are almost always changes that need to be made.


But look at the subject of your sentence. You used "we". We are intelligent. Evo is not! If you are building a 20 story building one does not reverse and start building a five floor apartment, reverse again ad start building a car. LOL



#4 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,017 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 23 July 2017 - 05:40 PM

the evidence is clear, evolution DOES NOT proceed by "small steps".
there is no evidence at all that says macroevolution happens by a series of small steps.

koonin (among others) spells it out bluntly and plainly.
all animal phyla (body plans) arrived here radially from eukaryote super groups leaving no ancestors.

the trouble with evolution?
internet shills such as "doctor" richard arrowsmith.
i'm sending you home in a handbasket if you ever show up here.
i'll be honest, you should be prosecuted for fraud to fullest extent possible.

#5 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,727 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 23 July 2017 - 06:19 PM

Piasan said:

Look at a dinosaur and look at a bird. There are a lot of steps from a dinosaur to a bird. What are the things birds have evolved they don't need?

To get to the bird the majority of those steps have to proceed towards a functioning bird. I can't honestly think of anything on a bird that is extranious. What are the misteps in bird evo? Where is the evidence of misteps? In other words what are the things a bird has that it does not need? Like all the plants and and animals the bird seems perfectly engineed for birdom!

The majority of the steps .... yes.  That was not your initial comment.

 

I don't pretend to know what a bird has that it does not need, nor do I claim any knowledge of what missteps there may have been.

 

You make a major issue that evolution *must* be random, therefore there is no such thing as "theistic" evolution.  I hate to point this out, but randomness itself mandates not all of the steps will be in the same direction.

 

Piasan said:

When we put up a building, there are almost always changes that need to be made.

But look at the subject of your sentence. You used "we". We are intelligent. Evo is not! If you are building a 20 story building one does not reverse and start building a five floor apartment, reverse again ad start building a car. LOL

There are still many changes that need to be made.  IOW, in erecting a building, not all of the work progresses toward the final product.  Some of it is ripped out and may (or may not) be replaced with some kind of change.

 

 

 

Piasan said:

The steps don't need all be in the same direction.

Look at a dinosaur and look at a bird. There are a lot of steps from a dinosaur to a bird. What are the things birds have evolved they don't need?

To get to the bird the majority of those steps have to proceed towards a functioning bird. I can't honestly think of anything on a bird that is extranious. What are the misteps in bird evo? Where is the evidence of misteps? In other words what are the things a bird has that it does not need? Like all the plants and and animals the bird seems perfectly engineed for birdom!

When we put up a building, there are almost always changes that need to be made.


But look at the subject of your sentence. You used "we". We are intelligent. Evo is not! If you are building a 20 story building one does not reverse and start building a five floor apartment, reverse again ad start building a car. LOL



#6 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,506 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 23 July 2017 - 08:05 PM


Piasan said:

 

"There are still many changes that need to be made.  IOW, in erecting a building, not all of the work progresses toward the final product.  Some of it is ripped out and may (or may not) be replaced with some kind of change.

 

And the reason it was ripped out was because it was a mistep or mistake. So it was a correction. And so the project goes on towards its goals.

Are you saying you think evo rips its mistakes out of what it evolved if it does not aid in the final destination of flight? Doesen't sound like Darwinian evo to me.

In the end we get the building we designed (goal set). Any changes are made by intelligent choice! That is not the mode evo operates in.

Your emphasis is on change in you example as if that is a fair comparison to evolution. Evo does not make mistakes. It is not human! It is not going to rip out any mistakes which have been selected for.
 

 

  majority of the steps .... yes.  That was not your initial comment.
 
I don't pretend to know what a bird has that it does not need, nor do I claim any knowledge of what missteps there may have been.

 


So there is no evidence of misteps. People and I have disected birds and I didn't see any uneeded guts inside them. Nor have I detected any unnecessary growths on the outside of a bird. Have you? Nope! Birds look and act perfectly designed to fly.

You make a major issue that evolution *must* be random, therefore there is no such thing as "theistic" evolution. 

Yes! Because that was Darwin's orgininal conception. There was no intelligent input needed for evo to function even though he put in intelligence to create the theory. Nobody seems to notice that.

Theistic evolution is ID.

 

I hate to point this out, but randomness itself mandates not all of the steps will be in the same direction?

I agree.
You are the one that claims God used evo. I for one would like you to explain how God used evolution? Give some examples.
As I said the claim seems to be an oxymoron!



#7 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,506 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 24 July 2017 - 05:48 AM

Piasan,
I just thought of something. What is the point of the attempted marriage of evo to to God? To insult His intelligence? If God were guiding evolution would there be any misteps? If that were the case it would be ID not evo!



#8 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,017 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 24 July 2017 - 10:23 AM

the trouble with evolution . . .

i believe evolution as you may know it, is in very serious trouble.
by koonins statements we see there is NO EVIDENCE of macro evolution (the crossing of animal phyla), and DID NOT arrive here by a bifurcating treelike pattern.
koonin also discounts the mainstream explanation as unreliable.

the matter of life arriving here naturally has not been answered and is unlikely to be answered in the near future.
science doesn't have a plausible scenario for it either.

is there a god?
only you can decide that, but be advised that 80% of the people feel they are more than physical laws can explain.

the sober second opinion of the people is seldom wrong.
- thomas jefferson.
  • Gneiss girl likes this

#9 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 939 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 24 July 2017 - 08:01 PM

the trouble with evolution . . .i believe evolution as you may know it, is in very serious trouble.by koonins statements we see there is NO EVIDENCE of macro evolution (the crossing of animal phyla), and DID NOT arrive here by a bifurcating treelike pattern.koonin also discounts the mainstream explanation as unreliable.the matter of life arriving here naturally has not been answered and is unlikely to be answered in the near future.science doesn't have a plausible scenario for it either.is there a god?only you can decide that, but be advised that 80% of the people feel they are more than physical laws can explain.the sober second opinion of the people is seldom wrong.- thomas jefferson.



"is there a God"

It is now an indisputable fact that there is some kind of intelligence agent that is responsible for all of the order, design, complexity, and harmony that we observe in the cosmos, nature and man... We call that intelligence agent God. Some people try to deceive themselves into thinking that they are merely accidental apes that evolved from pond scum for no reason.. A pathetically hopeless and miserable existence indeed, but that is the price that they have decided to pay for forcing themselves to believe in their Fairytale....


"Evolution can be thought of as sort of a magical religion. Magic is simply an effect without a cause, or at least a competent cause. 'Chance,' 'time,' and 'nature,' are the small gods enshrined at evolutionary temples. Yet these gods cannot explain the origin of life. These gods are impotent. Thus, evolution is left without competent cause and is, therefore, only a magical explanation for the existence of life..."

(Dr. Randy L. Wysong, instructor of human anatomy and physiology,

#10 Gneiss girl

Gneiss girl

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 50
  • (private)
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Western US

Posted 24 July 2017 - 08:49 PM

The problem with evolution
From Dinsaur to bird

There is an old Chinese proverb that says a journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step. That is the premise that evolutionists have seized upon.

 

 

When discussing the topic of macro evolution and micro evolution, we always hear the argument that macro evolution is just the many micro-steps on the long "journey of a thousand miles."

 

I think there are a few other analogies ( yes, I'm bringing up analogies again for the purpose of illustration), that fit evolution better. For what it is worth, here they are:

 

1) Instead of many small steps adding up to a long journey, (macro-evolution) evolution is more like a helium balloon. It can go up for awhile, but there will be "limits". Eventually other factors will affect the balloon. It never will have the ability (without an engineering solution) to proceed all the way to the moon. Macro-evolution is more like the distance between moons and planets, not a "two-dimensional" stroll down a street. 

 

2) Another analogy would be the "many small steps" being taken in a mine field. And this mine field has a lot of mines. What ever mutations that an organism obtains, are much more likely to end badly, than to be beneficial. Many paths which initially start out as beneficial, end up going down dead ends. The macro-level of change can not be reached.

 

3) Macro evolution is like building a bridge, over a precipitous gorge....blindfolded. Sure an organism might be able to get a few pieces in place while still safely close to shore. But there are only a few very specific moves that can be made while in the "middle" before the other side can safely be reached. And this is very unlikely to happen. 


  • mike the wiz likes this

#11 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,506 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 25 July 2017 - 08:31 AM

Genesis Girl said:

When discussing the topic of macro evolution and micro evolution, we always hear the argument that macro evolution is just the many micro-steps on the long "journey of a thousand miles."
 
I think there are a few other analogies ( yes, I'm bringing up analogies again for the purpose of illustration), that fit evolution better. For what it is worth, here they are:
 
1) Instead of many small steps adding up to a long journey, (macro-evolution) evolution is more like a helium balloon. It can go up for awhile, but there will be "limits". Eventually other factors will affect the balloon. It never will have the ability (without an engineering solution) to proceed all the way to the moon. Macro-evolution is more like the distance between moons and planets, not a "two-dimensional" stroll down a street. 
 
2) Another analogy would be the "many small steps" being taken in a mine field. And this mine field has a lot of mines. What ever mutations that an organism obtains, are much more likely to end badly, than to be beneficial. Many paths which initially start out as beneficial, end up going down dead ends. The macro-level of change can not be reached.
 
3) Macro evolution is like building a bridge, over a precipitous gorge....blindfolded. Sure an organism might be able to get a few pieces in place while still safely close to shore. But there are only a few very specific moves that can be made while in the "middle" before the other side can safely be reached. And this is very unlikely to happen.


We have a perfectly functionable process that is known to bring the seeming (at least evoluionary) impossible to pass. Material complexity of non living matter actually exists (cars. computers, cameras etc.) Creation is the only process we humans have that we can use to bring extreme material complexity into existence.

Why is it so unacceptable to suggest the use of intelligence to achieve biological complexity? We even have to use intelligence to create our theories and "just" so stories. But intelligence seems to be ignored when it comes to biological complexity--the world of thought ignored while we use it to reason and conclude it was not needed because evo can do it all! It's ludicrous!

I think life does all the work and imaginary evo gets the credit.


 


  • Gneiss girl likes this

#12 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 25 July 2017 - 12:25 PM

That's a good analogy because the vacuum of space is different from our atmosphere. In the same way there is a difference between changing/adapting an already-existent viable anatomy, and creating a new, novel anatomy.

 

Macro deals with the latter. And that is the problem, we can show that wing loss in beetles, or thicker toe-pads in lizards or larger bills on finches, don't affect the overall design of anatomy, nor would any more changes be part of a change in the design of anatomy.

 

That isn't how anatomy is. Anatomies have a whole bunch of congruent systems, they aren't changed step by step. For example a birds contraflow lung system with air sacs, hollow bones, etc...is a different anatomy to the mammalian bellows type lung. So then making a slightly smaller bellows type lung like in a bat, isn't "leading" anywhere, anatomically speaking. It just means you have a smaller lung system here, a more efficient one over there, a bigger capacity one over in another place. But those changes can be shown to be not leading anywhere in the direction of creating a newly designed system.

 

So all of the micro changes they offer, first of all, aren't leading anywhere in changing designs. Secondly the changes we do see, if they are part of an accumulation of micro changes, should not be "step 1". For example, for various species, one species might be on "step 342" and another might be on "step 23" in their "steps of micro change".

 

But do we see this accumulation of steps anywhere? No - we see completed anatomies that have superficial changes to them, but those changes in part, aren't observed to be part of any larger change. For example we cannot say; "this species has now nearly fully evolved a new lung system."

 

And yet shouldn't there be a myriad of such examples if all species are on different stages of their respective evolution? For example seed plants have remained identical in 5 million years but they say humans have evolved from apes in the same time. So then where are the examples of evolving anatomies?

 

A true logical prediction for evolution, is that because there are millions of kinds of animals all at various stages of evolution, having different generation spans and so forth, that we should see various stages of evolution.

 

To suppose we should see that all organisms are completed in the designs of their anatomy, with micro changes that aren't leading anywhere, is supportive of those organisms always being the same kind of organisms, having obtained superficial adaptations which aren't consequential.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users