Jump to content


Photo

The Trouble With Evolution

From Dinosaur to Bird

  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,416 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
  • 2,636 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
  • 3,416 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

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 713 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
  • 2,636 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
  • 3,416 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
  • 3,416 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

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 713 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.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users