http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread163678/pg1
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
Look through these two sites (or find your own site) that challenge the theory of evolution. Find a point that the site mentions that you believe is wrong, and explain against/refute their claim with evidence from either outside sources or from "Why Evolution Is True."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The initial post is this, “One of the best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary natural selection concept that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations improving a wing that was useless? The theory of evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage and the opposite from natural selection. According to natural selection the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly. Evolution is simply nonsense. This is so funny. We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense.”
ReplyDeleteSo, the people making this argument laugh at evolutionists for proposing the idea that the development of the wing is natural selection, yet they fail to mention why god would want to create an animal with such a useless structure. The problem with this argument is not only that they fail to support their view, but also seem to fail to understand the manner in which the wing was developed. The wings of birds did not just start out as a useless stubs. Instead they started out as fully functional forelimbs. These forelimbs developed feathers, initially to thermoregulate, and, eventually, developed further into wings. “Unlike modern reptiles, theropods may have been partially warm-blooded; and even if they weren't, feathers would have helped maintain body temperature” (Coyne 46). I think the people who scoff at this idea have the vision of wings randomly poking out of an animals body, which I could understand as laughable, if this were the idea. The two theories for the evolution of the wing, as discussed by Coyne on page 46, are the “trees down” theory and the “ground up” theory. These two theories explain ,respectively, that either the wing developed over time to increase the distance animals could travel through the canopy or to give birds an extra boost of speed while running. Modern examples of the tree sown theory can be demonstrated by flying squirrels, tree frogs, snakes, etc. The ground up theory can be demonstrated by ostriches. Ostriches are too large to fly, but have wings to increase their speed. This theme relates not only to evolution, but to structure and function. This is because the structure of light, rigid, and long feather with large surface areas function to generate lift for birds.
Eric Hennings
I agree with Eric's argument about the flaws of the argument on wings of birds that do not "help" the birds. Also, I would like to point out that if these birds that cannot fly with their wings have a disadvantage in their environment, then natural selection should have long eliminated these species. The million years that the article stated to develop the wings should have been eliminated if there was no purpose for them. Though humans are now intervening in natural selection as seen by rescuing endangered species and putting them in either zoos or training these organisms to survive in their environment, evolution still prevails regardless of intervention by other factors.
ReplyDeleteAnother site discussed that evolution was false because there were so many "gaps" in evolution that have never been discovered. It gave the example of scientists never finding the evolutionary connection between ape and man.
On the contrary, the specie Homo Habilis is one of the proposed species that may be able to link apes and humans together. Based on several factors such as skull size, and other bone structures that could be preserved in the earth. This discovery does not guarantee that humans and apes are connected, but it does provide more and more supporting evidence about the theory.
Some critics also argue about the gaps that the evolution has to fill and the fact that they cannot fill all of them. However, these critics are simply attacking without regard as to a better, scientifically sound theory instead of evolution that contains no "gaps". The superficiality of the critic's argument is shown through what evolutionary biologists have discovered. Evolutionary biologists have gained understanding through genetic analysis and other studies that demonstrate similarities in different classes and certain levels of divergence among genus.
This is related to the theme science as a process because critics do not follow through with their own experiments, but simply criticize evolutionary biologists for the "gaps" that have not yet been discovered. There is the component of analyzing and understanding science to be able to understand how theories such as evolution come to exist and why critics should not argue without valid points.
On http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html, a site called Debunking Evolution, the author(s) make the assertion that, because we have no proof that organisms can change over time, macroevolution is not possible. Macroevolution is the change from one organism into a different organism, large changes that are obvious in the phenotype and physiology of the organism. The page acknowledges microevolution, that is, the small, induced changes, such as fur colour, glowing bacteria, or different body shapes of fruit flies. The author(s), however, do not accept macroevolution for the sole fact that you can’t see the organisms evolve before your eyes. (Because I am overwhelmed by the sheer stubbornness of the author(s) I should like to say “Well, duh!”) Macroevolution is MACROevolution because it is a process that takes millions, if not billions of years.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Talkorigins.org, “macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch".” Mr. Coyne addresses this point of conflict early on in Why Evolution Is True, starting with the subheading “Missing Links” on pg. 32. He notes that creationists, if they do believe in microevolution, they do not believe in macroevolution, because they find it hard to believe that two very different organisms might have shared an ancestor. Missing links, or transitional forms, are the most prominent evidence for macroevolution; for example, the planktonic radiolarian Eucyrtidium took millions of years to increase the size of the fourth segment of its body, changes that barely register in microns (p.32). If something microscopic can take millions of years to change significantly enough to diverge into a species, then imagine how long it would take for, say, humans to develop from the first mammal. I think what a large part of the creationists’ disbelief is a lack of visual evidence (though personally I think fossils are enough) to prove macroevolution is happening before their eyes. One line (highlighted in red, no less) notes “There is much variation in fruit flies. There are many mutations. But they never turn into anything new. They always remain fruit flies.” This is because in order for evolution scientists to prove that fruit flies, given enough environmental pressure and time, they would have to take at least thousands of years to prove this, and by that point both the original dissenters and scientists performing the experiment would be long gone.
Another part regarding macroevolution that creationists find hard to believe are the proto-organs that would have to form before the organism would have the organ that we see today, like Eric’s example with the wings. On the site, the author(s) assert that “natural selection would not choose parts that did not have all their components existing, in place, connected, and regulated because the parts would not work.” This is simply not true. Mammals such as sugar gliders and flying squirrels do not have fully operational wings, like bats or birds, but their flaps of skin that help them glide from tree to tree could very well develop further in the far, far future. As structures change and develop, so too does the function of the structures. We are also given proof in fossils, with the missing links of transitional species, such as Compsognathus and Archaeopteryx. As Compsognathus’s arms elongated, tail shortened, and pelvis reoriented itself, it’s not hard to draw the conclusion that Archaeopteryx, and later birds like the chicken evolved from Compsognathus and similar species (p.42). In an earlier blog prompt, too, fossils have been found that may be the missing link from apes to humans. In truth, the evidence for macroevolution is much more compelling than against.
(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html)