Why giraffe can't come from the evolution

[Orogeny]

abcdefg:

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

But it is! It is!

Peace

Tim

 

[abcdefg]

Orogeny:

But it is! It is!

Peace

Tim

“That looks like the sin of arrogance to me.” ----Thistle

 

[hecd2]

abcdefg:

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

Always, without exception, the sun moves relative to the earth. Always.

But don’t let us get distracted. You were going to explain to me why birds’ arms are constructed from a humerus, radius, ulna, metacarpals and phalanges, just like a human’s arm really. So is a bat’s arm. Why is that, do you think?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[thistle]

“That looks like the sin of arrogance to me.” ----Thistle

Don’t dare quote my words to you as if they applied to anyone else here. They don’t.

 

[thistle]

abcdefg:

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.

And we all thought you believed in the young earth or can’t you make your mind up!!

 

[abcdefg]

hecd2:

Always, without exception, the sun moves relative to the earth. Always.
%between%

Then go to die (I can’t say “go to hell” as it’s blasphemous)

Read Jos 10:13

 

[abcdefg]

thistle:

And we all thought you believed in the young earth or can’t you make your mind up!!

To prove old earth is false. it’s better to assume it were truth and reveal the absurdity.

This is a scientific method. and you don’t understand.

 

[thistle]

abcdefg:

To prove old earth is false. it’s better to assume it were truth and reveal the absurdity.

This is a scientific method. and you don’t understand.

You are wrong. Every poster has proved you wrong but you are either too blind or arrogant to see it!!

 

[abcdefg]

thistle:

You are wrong. Every poster has proved you wrong but you are either too blind or arrogant to see it!!

Every poster? Is that a scientific claim? you just keep on swearing in these threads. at least you aren’t one of them.

you’re just not a poster or there’s more in it (for example not a …? )

 

[thistle]

abcdefg:

Every poster? Is that a scientific claim? you just keep on swearing in these threads. at least you aren’t one of them.

you’re just not a poster or there’s more in it (for example not a …? )

You accuse me of swearing? Show me one of my posts where I have said a swear word and I will publicly apologise to you.

 

[abcdefg]

Why should I give you an example when you don’t even know how to apologize!

 

[PhilVaz]

All I can say is the moderators CANNOT be reading any of these evolution threads or abcdefg would have been BANNED a long time ago.

Phil P

 

[Axion]

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’.

This paper doesn’t actually present any evidence for Darwinian Evolution. (Random mutation aided by Natural Selection). All it does is posit theoretical solutions for some highly inconveniant facts. For example the fact that the ancestors of archeopteryx were not tree-dwellers is rather worrying for the step-by-step approach to explaining the evolution of flight wings.

In other words a random mutation suddenly produced a complete flying system for a ground-dwelling animal! This is very hard to conceive of happening.

Indeed we must not be too dogmatic in attempts to cling to random evolutionary theory when difficulties are raised.

Take Darwin’s own finches on the galapagos. Is it really credible that in the short period of time that the finches were isolated on the islands, enough random and beneficial mutations occurred to explain the diversity of new species?

 

[thistle]

abcdefg:

Why should I give you an example when you don’t even know how to apologize!

You have committed the sin of detraction against me. I think this thread should be closed now by the moderators.

 

[trumpet152]

David Zampino:

Actually, I thought that the evolution of the giraffe was directly influenced by Ford Prefect when he and Arthur Dent were stranded on pre-historic Earth 2 million years ago.

Guess I was wrong . . .

 

[abcdefg]

Axion:

This paper doesn’t actually present any evidence for Darwinian Evolution. (Random mutation aided by Natural Selection). All it does is posit theoretical solutions for some highly inconveniant facts. For example the fact that the ancestors of archeopteryx were not tree-dwellers is rather worrying for the step-by-step approach to explaining the evolution of flight wings.

In other words a random mutation suddenly produced a complete flying system for a ground-dwelling animal! This is very hard to conceive of happening.

Indeed we must not be too dogmatic in attempts to cling to random evolutionary theory when difficulties are raised.

Take Darwin’s own finches on the galapagos. Is it really credible that in the short period of time that the finches were isolated on the islands, enough random and beneficial mutations occurred to explain the diversity of new species?

Well said!

 

[abcdefg]

thistle:

I think this thread should be closed now by the moderators.

First mod action are not open to debate. Second, if you were winning you by no means wanted mod to close the thread.

Keep revealing the problem of Darwinism.

 

[steveandersen]

Axion:

This paper doesn’t actually present any evidence for Darwinian Evolution. (Random mutation aided by Natural Selection). All it does is posit theoretical solutions for some highly inconveniant facts. For example the fact that the ancestors of archeopteryx were not tree-dwellers is rather worrying for the step-by-step approach to explaining the evolution of flight wings.

Is that what you take away from that paper?!!
Must be one of those “same planet, differnt worlds” things because that is not what I took from it.

The notion that avian features started out as something other than wings is hardly inconvenient. In fact it not only answers the questions of “half a wing” cranks but is also gets rid of the inconvenient problems of the “tree down” hypothesis namely that modern examples of tree down species are gliders like tree squirrels and their skin flap adaptations look more like bat or pterosaur features than avian.

Axion:

In other words a random mutation suddenly produced a complete flying system for a ground-dwelling animal! This is very hard to conceive of happening.

That is not what that paper said. It said, as has been mentioned above, that the features evolved with non-flight applications first.
Besides, just because something is hard to conceive is no measure of its strength or weakness….IIRC it took 70 years to conceive Isaac.

(and then there is that “random” thing again)

Axion:

Indeed we must not be too dogmatic in attempts to cling to random evolutionary theory when difficulties are raised.

Take Darwin’s own finches on the galapagos. Is it really credible that in the short period of time that the finches were isolated on the islands, enough random and beneficial mutations occurred to explain the diversity of new species?

Since modern work on the Galapagos bird populations have actually observed rapid changes in response to environmental pressures then yes it is credible.

(and there is that “random” thing yet again)

 

[rossum]

abcdefg (post#111):

with a tiny “wing” 1mm, you won’t try the height that can previously kill you.

My point is that the proto wing had another use - the picture of the flying frog showed that its feet and hands could be used for both swimming and gliding. If a small proto-wing gives you a 1% better chance of surviving a fall, in addition to its other function, then that is enough of an advantage for natural selection to work on. Natural selection works like compound interest, even a small genetic advantage can spread through a population over many generations.
abcdefg (post#111):

that site is in german.

Yes, however the bar at the left side has options for either an english or a french translation, whichever is easier for you. The picture alone makes my point that proto-wings have other uses as well.
abcdefg (post#112):

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

I did not intended to make a personal attack, my apologies for not making myself clearer. I was trying to advise you how to make your attacks on evolution more effective. More knowledge of your enemy can be useful to help you to target your attacks better.
abcdefg (post#113):

without a strong muscle as all early dinos with wings have shown. wings are source for aerodynamic drag.

Have you never seen a bird with its wings folded against its body? That would reduce drag when running. The drag when the arms were unfolded would be useful for slowing down a fall.
abcdefg (post#113):

the larger the wing the slower an animal can run on the groud.

This is incorrect. An ostrich has a larger wing than a sparrow and an ostrich can run a lot faster on the ground than a sparrow. Please do more research before posting, you are not doing the creationist cause any favours by making obvious mistakes like this.
abcdefg (post#116):

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.

Yes, they are different and bats’ wings are different, pterosaurs’ wings were different and insects’ wings are different. A bird-like wing is not the only option for powered flight. Powered flight has evolved four times and each time the wing that evolved was different. Gliding flight has also evolved many times and again the gliding surfaces are often different, compare the flying frog to the flying squirrel. What point are you trying to make here?

I note your continuing failure to give any evidence to support creationism, such as fossils of Cambrian giraffes.

rossum

 

[David_Zampino]

Glad someone got it . . .

Blessings,