Why giraffe can't come from the evolution

[tomaskovarik]

abcdefg:

I don’t even have to find out how high trees and bushes respectively are. btw there’re already enough picture of that.

one fact contradicts E"T", and it’s over.
wings are important to a bird, but half wings aren’t of half importance. they’re useless.

And now, lets discuss evolution of turtles and half turtles. Oh, by the way, abcedfg - your argument of half wings being not good - was already explained by Jay Gould and his theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. So, you do not have half wings in the process of evolution. Not even quarter wings.
But aside from that, how would you explain why giraffes do not have wings? Wouldn’t it be better than long necks?

 

[rossum]

abcdefg (post #84):

A more straight forward example,

1. Wings have to be large enough to enable a creature to fly or glide
2. First “birds” (or last reptiles before becoming birds) couldn’t develop usable large wings within one or a few lifespans. and had no advantage over creatures hadn’t developed wings.

thus, natural selection can’t pick out creatures on their way to develop usable wings and birds can’t come from evolution.

What are now wings probably started as something else. There are animals which are even now beginning to evolve wings. My personal favourite is the flying frog, which uses its webbed hands and feet for gliding. Frogs evolved their webbed feet for swimming in water, this one has adapted them just a little to help it glide in air as well. That is where point 1 of your argument fails, the proto-wing would probably have been dual-purpose. It may not have been a lot of use as a wing but it would have been useful for other some other purpose, like swimming in the case of the flying frog. Other purposes proposed for proto-wings are temperature regulation, direction changes when running or catching insects. For a tree-climbing animal anything that tends to slow a fall or lengthen a jump, even slightly, will be an advantage. Loose flaps of skin are often used for this purpose and may well have been the way bat’s wings originated.

Your continuing failure to produce evidence of Cambrian giraffes is noted.
abcdefg (post #71):

my article in post #1 shows there’s no fossil evidence, his article shows there’re. you can believe whatever you want, but don’t force it on me.

I am forcing nothing on you. You say that evolution is wrong and that creationism is correct, I am just asking for your evidence to support creationism. Looking at timings of the first two posts in this thread, it took PhilVaz about twenty minutes to find his evidence on the evolution of giraffes. You have had a lot more than twenty minutes and you have not produced anything. If you have no evidence, then just say so and I will stop asking for it.

rossum

 

[Jason_Meyers]

8 replies from evolutionists and they can do nothing about the appearence of wings

abcdefg,
This is getting rediculous. You do not understand evolution. Your posts are jousting at windmills that do not exist in modern evolutionary theory.
Before you post any more “evolution cannot explain” try doing a little bit of work. There are two wonderful tools called the internet and a library which will allow you to learn a bit about science, about what evolution actually is and what it actually can and cannot say. If I can find in about 30 seconds of searching, a scientific paper that says exactly what you say science cannot say, then you have not done your homework.

Just for those lurkers who might take silence about wings to mean that evolution really cannot explain it, let me just say that 1) the evolution of feathers is independent of the evolution of flight (such as a method for temperature regulation) and 2) the bones and muscles and other structures involved in powered flight have a good fossil record in therapod dinosaurs that suggest gradual evolution of the forelimb for a variety of purposes (including grabbing prey) which were then coopted for both gliding and extending ability to move just above the ground, which were then coopted for powered flight.

That is half-a-wing might not be good for powered flight, but advances to the forelimb might be useful for a number of other things which evolution can select for.

I’ll post the abstract from an 8-year old review of this. Much progress has been made since then, but it should at least start to answer questions.

Abstract from:
The origin and early evolution of birds
KEVIN PADIAN and LUIS M. CHIAPPE
Biological Reviews: 73: 1-42
Birds evolved from and are phylogenetically recognized as members of the theropod dinosaurs; their first known member is the Late Jurassic Archaeopteryx, now represented by seven skeletons and a feather, and their closest known non-avian relatives are the dromaeosaurid theropods such as Deinonychus. Bird flight is widely thought to have evolved from the trees down, but Archaeopteryx and its outgroups show no obvious arboreal or tree-climbing characters, and its wing planform and wing loading do not resemble those of gliders. The ancestors of birds were bipedal, terrestrial, agile, cursorial and carnivorous or omnivorous. Apart from a perching foot and some skeletal fusions, a great many characters that are usually considered ‘avian’ (e.g. the furcula, the elongated forearm, the laterally flexing wrist and apparently feathers) evolved in non-avian theropods for reasons unrelated to birds or to flight. Soon after Archaeopteryx, avian features such as the pygostyle, fusion of the carpometacarpus, and elongated curved pedal claws with a reversed, fully descended and opposable hallux, indicate improved flying ability and arboreal habits. In the further evolution of birds, characters related to the flight apparatus phylogenetically preceded those related to the rest of the skeleton and skull. Mesozoic birds are more diverse and numerous than thought previously and the most diverse known group of Cretaceous birds, the Enantiornithes, was not even recognized until 1981. The vast majority of Mesozoic bird groups have no Tertiary records: Enantiornithes, Hesperornithiformes, Ichthyornithiformes and several other lineages disappeared by the end of the Cretaceous. By that time, a few Linnean ‘Orders’ of extant birds had appeared, but none of these taxa belongs to extant ‘families’, and it is not until the Paleocene or (in most cases) the Eocene that the majority of extant bird ‘Orders’ are known in the fossil record. There is no evidence for a major or mass extinction of birds at the end of the Cretaceous, nor for a sudden ‘bottleneck’ in diversity that fostered the early Tertiary origination of living bird ‘Orders’.

 

[Jason_Meyers]

Just for completeness, I should mention that one of the more interesting fossils to be found recently is the four-winged dinosaur, which apparently has both forelimbs and hindlimbs with aerodynamic properties.

Nature. 2003 Jan 23;421(6921):335-40.
Four-winged dinosaurs from China.

Xu X, Zhou Z, Wang X, Kuang X, Zhang F, Du X.

Although the dinosaurian hypothesis of bird origins is widely accepted, debate remains about how the ancestor of birds first learned to fly. Here we provide new evidence suggesting that basal dromaeosaurid dinosaurs were four-winged animals and probably could glide, representing an intermediate stage towards the active, flapping-flight stage. The new discovery conforms to the predictions of early hypotheses that proavians passed through a tetrapteryx stage.

Okay, abcdefg, now it’s your turn to do some research. For every question you’ve asked, we’ve posted scientific responses. All you’ve posted is “science can’t explain” and a few pictures of giraffes. Go find some science.
JRM

 

[tomaskovarik]

Jason Meyers:

Just for completeness, I should mention that one of the more interesting fossils to be found recently is the four-winged dinosaur, which apparently has both forelimbs and hindlimbs with aerodynamic properties.

Okay, abcdefg, now it’s your turn to do some research. For every question you’ve asked, we’ve posted scientific responses. All you’ve posted is “science can’t explain” and a few pictures of giraffes. Go find some science.
JRM

But they were nice pictures!

 

[rossum]

Jason Meyers:

abcdefg,
This is getting rediculous. You do not understand evolution. Your posts are jousting at windmills that do not exist in modern evolutionary theory.

Jason is right, if you want to argue effectively against evolution then you are going to have to learn more about it. Currently most of your arguments look a bit like this:1 Christianity says that the moon is made of green cheese.
2 The moon is not made of green cheese.
3 Therefore Christianity is wrong.That is a laughably bad argument. Many of yours are almost as bad as that and just as wrong. Obviously the problem with my example is that part 1 is wrong so the rest of the argument fails. Many of your arguments have a similar problem; when you post things like “Evolution says …” or “Evolution cannot explain …” you have to be sure that what you are saying about evolution is correct and not wrong as in my example. Some of the people posting here may have studied evolution in University. They will be able to pick up any errors in your posts, so it is better for you if you can avoid making them in the first place.

As Jason says you need to learn more about evolution in order to be able to fight it effectively, just as a doctor needs to learn more about disease in order to fight disease more effectively. For a start I would suggest Understanding Evolution.

I am still awaiting your evidence to support creationism, such as fossils of Cambrian giraffes. If you do not have any evidence then it really would be easier for you to say so. It is not wrong to have no evidence, nobody can be expected to know everything.

rossum

 

[hecd2]

Jason Meyers:

Just for completeness, I should mention that one of the more interesting fossils to be found recently is the four-winged dinosaur, which apparently has both forelimbs and hindlimbs with aerodynamic properties.
JRM

Short description that I wrote at the time this was published is here:

evolutionpages.com/microraptor%20gui.htm

Alec

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[abcdefg]

tomaskovarik:

And now, lets discuss evolution of turtles and half turtles. Oh, by the way, abcedfg - your argument of half wings being not good - was already explained by Jay Gould and his theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. So, you do not have half wings in the process of evolution. Not even quarter wings.
But aside from that, how would you explain why giraffes do not have wings? Wouldn’t it be better than long necks?

Why can’t you bear a son with a full developed set of wings? It’s not against Gould?

 

[abcdefg]

Jason Meyers:

Just for completeness, I should mention that one of the more interesting fossils to be found recently is the four-winged dinosaur, which apparently has both forelimbs and hindlimbs with aerodynamic properties.

Okay, abcdefg, now it’s your turn to do some research. For every question you’ve asked, we’ve posted scientific responses. All you’ve posted is “science can’t explain” and a few pictures of giraffes. Go find some science.
JRM

go and explain how wings developed.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

tomaskovarik:

haha, OK, crocodiles disprove evolution!!!
crocodiles, as we know, cannot reach the top of any tree right? Because they have not developed long legs, I mean necks. Now, the question is why do they have 4 legs (quadrupeds), when (as thistle correctly points out), they should have 6 legs instead (due to cosmic radiation). But if they had 6 legs and no long necks, then the flagellums in their ovaries cannot really function at all. So, the conclusion is that the cannot, I repeat CANNOT have 6 legs and short necks, so they ended up with only 4 legs (quadrupeds) and short necks, which is a contradiction. So, if you followed my logic, I am sure that you see that abcdefghjiklem was right all along
Peace

OTOH, isn’t there a fish in India that climbs trees ? ​

encyclopedia.com/html/c1/climb-pr.asp

• Climbing perches travel in search of water when their ponds dry up; they walk with jerky movements, supported by the spiny edges of the gill plates and propelled by the fins and tail. They are said to climb low trees.

OTOH - aquarticles.com/articles/breeding/Marshall_Climbing_Perch.html

HOW DID THESE FISH GAIN THEIR COMMON NAME? - Climbing Perch came about due to a ‘myth’. Because certain individuals are said to have been found in tree tops a ‘myth’ has spread that these fish are the ‘Tarzan of the fish world’ able to shin up tree trunks with ease but this has yet to be scientifically proved so it is more likely that fish eating birds actually dropped or left catches of this particular fish on tree branches.

Result - puzzlement ##

 

[abcdefg]

rossum:

What are now wings probably started as something else. There are animals which are even now beginning to evolve wings.

with a tiny “wing” 1mm, you won’t try the height that can previously kill you. even if you’re not killed, you still will be injured seriously, without medical attention, it’s no difference compared with being killed.

I can give two fans to use as wings, but you won’t try jumping from 10 floor building to see if this height is an advantage for you

How long have flying squirrels existed? They simply won’t develop wings capable of flying.

that site is in german. I might give you a Vietnamese site and make you turn to a dictionary every few seconds.

 

[abcdefg]

rossum:

Jason is right, if you want to argue effectively against evolution then you are going to have to learn more about it.

personal attacks. I take back everything nice I said about you.

 

[abcdefg]

Just for those lurkers who might take silence about wings to mean that evolution really cannot explain it, let me just say that 1) the evolution of feathers is independent of the evolution of flight (such as a method for temperature regulation) and 2) the bones and muscles and other structures involved in powered flight have a good fossil record in therapod dinosaurs that suggest gradual evolution of the forelimb for a variety of purposes (including grabbing prey) which were then coopted for both gliding and extending ability to move just above the ground, which were then coopted for powered flight.

That is half-a-wing might not be good for powered flight, but advances to the forelimb might be useful for a number of other things which evolution can select for.

1. irrelevent to the topic. we’re discussing wings here
2. without a strong muscle as all early dinos with wings have shown. wings are source for aerodynamic drag. the larger the wing the slower an animal can run on the groud.

half-a-wing has no use for gliding or flying and is harmful for running on ground

 

[hecd2]

1) irrelevent to the topic. we’re discussing wings here
2) without a strong muscle as all early dinos with wings have shown. wings are source for aerodynamic drag. the larger the wing the slower an animal can run on the groud.

half-a-wing has no use for gliding or flying and is harmful for running on ground

I know this will be an utter waste of time as far abc is concerned as he is omniscient. But perhaps somewhat more modest people might get something from this.

There are many existing animals in the world that have independently evolved ‘half-a -wing’ that they use for gliding

In South East Asia: colugos (also known as flying lemurs) Cynocephalus volans and C variegatus whose closest relatives are tree shrews have a wing that extends to the end of the digits like a bat (they are not closely related top bats)

In America: Flying squirrels (they belong to the squirrel family) such as Glaucomys volans

In Africa: the Anomaluridae that are rodents not closely related to squirrels

In Australia: a rich set of *marsupial *gliding mammals such as Petaurus breviceps, the sugar glider, Schoinobates volans, the greater glider or Acrobates pygmaeus, the pygmy glider.

The pygmy glider has less than half a wing. It has quarter of a wing.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Cute little pygmy glider with quarter of a wing:

http://www.americazoo.com/goto/index/mammals/animals/15.jpg

 

[thistle]

1) irrelevent to the topic. we’re discussing wings here
2) without a strong muscle as all early dinos with wings have shown. wings are source for aerodynamic drag. the larger the wing the slower an animal can run on the groud.

half-a-wing has no use for gliding or flying and is harmful for running on ground

Why don’t you stop all this nonsense. The other posters have produced evidence and given the sources so you can go to them and read them and come back with some comments of substance. You have failed to do that and you have not provided any credible sources for your comments for the posters in this thread to read. You simply give one line comments that are meaningless.

 

[abcdefg]

hecd2:

I know this will be an utter waste of time as far abc is concerned as he is omniscient.

I know this will be an utter waste of time as far evolutionist is concerned as Adam and Eve are right to eat the forbidden fruit.

flying squirrels have had that kind of “wing” for millions of years. it’s definitely not the optimal size for flying. this kind of “wing” is different to birds’ wing in that it connects arms and legs while birds’ wings are just another form of arms.

 

[hecd2]

There are some things you can bet your life on. The sun will rise in the east. abc will never accept any rational argument or evidence.

abcdefg:

flying squirrels have had that kind of “wing” for millions of years.

REALLY!!!??? How do you know?

this kind of “wing” is different to birds’ wing in that it connects arms and legs while birds’ wings are just another form of arms.

Hmm - just another kind of arm with humerus, radius, ulna, metacarpals and phalanges like all tetrapods. I wonder why that is?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Orogeny]

[flying squirrels have had that kind of “wing” for millions of years.

Now, exactly where in Genesis is this found? Millions of years? Why, that’s positively ATHIESTIC!!!

Peace

Tim
[/quote]

 

[abcdefg]

Orogeny:

Now, exactly where in Genesis is this found? Millions of years? Why, that’s positively ATHIESTIC!!!

Peace

Tim

you write-only-memory
All these discussions are assuming E"T" were true.

 

[abcdefg]

hecd2:

There are some things you can bet your life on. The sun will rise in the east. abc will never accept any rational argument or evidence.

Are you a Christian? if so, dare you bet your life on sun always moves relative to earth?