If Evolution were true then why…

I am about to ask an even sillier seeming question to those who would profess allegiance to the Evolutionary theory than before.  If Evolution knows no boundaries so that single-celled organisms could evolve into such complex entities as human beings and blue whales, why aren’t domesticated pigs and beef cows the size of buses or dinosaurs?

Farm animals are intentionally bred to produce the best qualities, usually size and girth.  The bigger and more fit the animal the the better the quality and quantity of meat they produce which means more money to the farmer.  The farmer has a strong motivation to do this and should have the means.  He could (and does) choose the largest from the herds to breed, so why do they seem to have a limit on how big they can be bred?

One should be able to conclude that by always choosing the largest animals with which to breed, the animals ought to grow larger with every generation or few, yet they seem to have a point, a natural genetic limit if you will, at which they have maxed-out.

In the farming atmosphere one doesn’t need to wait years for the largest two animals to find each other and procreate.  They are intentionally matched yet they remain the same relative size after thousands of years of breeding the best of the herd with one another.

So I ask, if Evolution were true then why does there seem to be natural genetic limits past which organisms cannot exceed?  It should be the case that if Evolution were able to explain the extreme variation we see in the biological world, no such limits should impede any variation.

Comments

  1. They do (though genetics may impose natural limitations) …

    • That’s big, but they ought to be the size of buses or dinosaurs. Ahem, according to common ancestry and natural selection, there aren’t “natural limitations”, that’s how we went from jelly to all this.

  2. http://earthsky.org/earth/felisa-smith-why-mammals-havent-out-sized-biggest-dinosaurs

    It certainly is an interesting question. The website above provides one possible explanation: “A mammal of a given size uses ten times more energy than does a reptile or a dinosaur of the same size. In other words, mammals can’t evolve bodies as large as the largest dinosaurs because they need to use so much of their physical energy – provided by the food they eat – towards keeping their bodies warm. For example, we humans need to maintain a temperature of 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit, or 37 degrees Celsius, in order to stay alive. But dinosaurs, like today’s reptiles, did not regulate their body temperature, and the extra energy allowed them to grow larger… I think it’s really intriguing that the largest dinosaurs are just about ten times larger than the largest mammal.”

    So that explains why they’d die before getting that large, but why can’t we just FORCE them to grow so big that they overheat and die? Well, this may be because, after millions of years, nature dialed in an ideal size for this kind of animal. Generation after generation, this setting gets reinforced and cemented into its genes, and everything about the animal evolves around this ideal. The animal just isn’t programmed to be able to grow much larger or smaller. It might one day be possible to program around these settings and make a giant cow, even at the expense of the animal.

    Looking at canines, we know we can select for a large variety of traits within a single species (and rapidly change their shape). But can we make a 10,000 pound dog like Clifford the Big Red Dog? Probably not, the programming just isn’t there for it.

  3. There are so many questions like this that highlight the myriad assumptions of evolution. One I’ve asked is why do critters with legs all have two eyes, two ears, one nose, and one mouth. Why not 3 eyes? I know about the fruit flies, that they have compound eyes, but how many compound eyes do they have on their head? One would think that, given the assumption that everything that is is the result of mere chance selections, that there would be much more diversity in format, and as you point out, size.

    Another question I like to ask is how did the gay gene make it?

    Of course there are always answers. When your science gets to make things up to suit the foregone conclusion that’s simply how it rolls, I know that. But it is fun to watch.

  4. The short answer to your question is that there are boundaries and constraints to the evolutionary process. Simply put, advantageous traits generally continue and other traits do not. Larger size is not always advantageous.

    These questions are good ones to ask, but it’s all moot if one is so quick to believe like Danny that science is all made up. Evolution is about adaptation and change over time, not mere chance.

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/02/120203-mammals-evolution-body-size-science-elephants-mice/

    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC6bConstraints.shtml

    http://www.pnas.org/content/104/45/17707

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cope's_rule

    A google search of “developmental constraints and evolution” may help.

    • Z

      You miss the crucial factor, the artificial environment of the farm. Their size is not a biological factor and there are no down sides because they are cared for.

      So if evolution were true there would be no natural limits any organism could reach, especially if common descent is true.

  5. Another why I’ve wondered about. Why does “science” tell us that some species have stopped “evolving”? For example, the shark?

  6. Of course there are limits. By your reasoning, birds should be able to break the sound barrier.

    As for Craig’s comment, who says that animals have stopped evolving?

  7. TerranceH says:

    I don’t agree with evolution, but I am somewhat familiar with it, so let me try to answer this question.

    Most importantly, natural selection has nothing to do with creating the best, most efficient design. Instead, it focuses on what works and what doesn’t. If something works, it is carried over into the next generation. If it doesn’t, it’s not.

    Try this example. If two people are dueling and one of them only has a knife, the other person doesn’t need an armored tank to win. Perhaps all he needs is a sword. And so it goes with evolution. Species compete against one another in a given population, evolving as necessary to succeed.

    Therefore, assuming evolution is true, the only limits are population based. I don’t need an armored tank to win a duel if the other guy only has a knife.

  8. TerranceH says:

    I don’t think this is the best attack on evolution because you’re talking about something that is advantageous for the farmer, not the cow. The farmer desires bigger cows for more meat, thus more money. But the cow doesn’t really benefit from this at all.

    Furthermore, mammoths don’t really prove your point. African Elephants, according to scientists, are direct descendants of the mammoth. These elephants are smaller than the mammoths, not bigger. There could be many reasons for this, including the reality that bigger animals require more food and energy, and thus are less efficient with respect to survival.

    You must also wonder about the size of the typical cattle ranch. How much cattle does the farmer have? If each cow grew to the size of a dinosaur, would the rancher have enough room? Would there be enough grass? Probably not.

    I appreciate what you’re trying to do, because I don’t agree with evolution, but I don’t think this is a good argument.

  9. But that’s just it. I could make up a story that explains what is. Cows are a certain size. I could make up a story that explains that fact using evolution. But making up stories to show the plausibility of ones faith is not science.

  10. My point is that there is no contradiction or unexplained circumstance in this case. Cows are a certain size because — I gave you the answer. It’s just a poor assault on evolution because it’s not a “gotch’a question” and the answer is perfectly in line with the process of evolution as explained by science. There are far better criticisms of evolution.

  11. Not to get too deep into details, but the explanation to which 500 Questions linked doesn’t make sense. A larger animal of any kind requires more to fuel it. But a larger mammal, say a cow growing to the size of an T-Rex, would not necessarily “overheat”, but would still have the same body temperature. That is, I don’t see why a larger size would mean anything to the body temperature or the nourishment required to maintain it. It may be that the explanation isn’t clear. I may be missing something, but it seems nonsensical.

  12. I don’t get his point regarding body temperature, but it’s true that the bigger the animal, the more food they need to sustain energy levels capable of survival.

  13. Dinosaurs were coldblooded, like modern reptiles. So they regulated their body temperatures the same way reptiles do. They don’t eat when they’re overheated, they don’t sit in the shade when they’re cold, et cetera…

    That’s the only thing I can think 500 is referring to.

  14. Would that be more food simply because they’re bigger? That is to say, don’t all animals eat what each particular animal needs? If we could shrink an animal, as we can with miniature horses and dogs, are they not eating the same amount as normal sized animals relative to their size?

  15. Marshal,

    By saying they eat “more,” I mean to suggest a quantitative distinction. They eat relative to their body size, like all animals, but they eat so much more because they are so much bigger. There can only be so many large animals in a certain environment before the food source depletes.

  16. Bigger humans generally eat more than smaller humans. I think they all have the same average body temperature. I would compare the body temps of normal horses and miniatures to see what difference their might be. It’s a silly point, but as it was raised, I just couldn’t leave it alone.

  17. I don’t know anything about 500’s point regarding body temperature, but I think it was focused on dinosaurs who, like reptiles, were coldblooded. Therefore, their body temperature is directly related to their energy levels, which is related to the amount of food they consume.

  18. John,

    “So if evolution were true there would be no natural limits any organism could reach”

    That is false. It is not concluded from the theory.

    • Isu

      How could life go from single celled organisms all the way through history up to dinosaurs to humans if there were natural limits? It seems rather far fetched and self serving for you or anyone to say that natural limits prevent a cow from being the same size as a bus, but natural limits dont prohibit an amoeba from becoming a triceratops.

  19. John,

    “How could life go from single celled organisms all the way through history up to dinosaurs to humans if there were natural limits?”

    There ARE natural limits.
    You are the one who must explain how natural limits impede evolution.

    “It seems rather far fetched and self serving for you or anyone to say that natural limits prevent a cow from being the same size as a bus, but natural limits dont prohibit an amoeba from becoming a triceratops.”

    I don’t know which exacty are the natural limits for a cow size. Anyway, the theory doesn’t say you can reach them simply by breeding, there must be also mutations.
    Besides, a triceratops is not an amoeba whereas a giant cow would be still a cow.

  20. “Sharks are one of the most physically perfect lifeforms on this planet.”
    “…400 million years of ancestry allowing the shark to evolve into a perfectly adapted ocean predator.”
    “They’re just perfectly adapted predators.”
    “… today they represent one of the most perfectly adapted, successful life forms in the sea.”
    ” They have roamed our oceans for over 400 million years and survived various extinction events to evolve into predators that are perfectly adapted to the marine environment.”

    I apologize for making my earlier comment, then leaving the responder hanging. Just got busy.

    However a quick google search confirmed my memory, that sharks are considered to be “perfectly evolved”.

    Thus my question. How does a shark decide it’s perfectly evolved? If it is perfectly evolved, then won’t any further mutations only detract from perfection? Doesn’t the concept of perfection imply some sense of design or intent?

    This has always seemed to be a contradiction of macro evolutionary theory.

    John, excellent point on limits.

  21. TerranceH says:

    The fact that there are no limits to evolution is completely unrelated to your question regarding cows, John, and I explained why. There are no limits in relation to the parameters of a given population. There is simply no reason for a cow to grow to the size of a dinosaur.

    • T

      I agree there is no reason for a cow to grow to the size of a dinosaur… under natural and normal conditions. However, if evolution were true, their environment could be made to foster and encourage that being done. And if evolution were true, in the macro sense, it should be entirely possible given the lengths it has gone to “create” organisms such as dinosaurs from organisms such as algae.

      • TerranceH says:

        John,

        Unless there is some benefit to the cow then such an environment would not produce the desired result. You’re mixing up the farmer and cow, my friend. It’s good for the farmer! He’d make tons of money just off one cow, but in what way would the cow benefit?

        Natural selection is focused on what works, not what is optimal.

        • And because the farmer feeds the cow and breeds them with the best, the cow doesn’t need to benefit except but to exist. It doesn’t have natural hindrances.

          • TerranceH says:

            But if there is no benefit to the cow, then there is no reason for “natural selection” to make the cow as large as a dinosaur.

            Besides that, natural selection is just random mutations. There is no aim, really. If something works, it’s kept. But most of the mutations are harmful. It’s not a directed process. You seem to be suggesting that natural selection is some conscious process that is always trying to improve upon itself. It’s not.

            • T

              It wouldn’t be left to “natural” selection. The farmers would be artificially selecting for larger cows. The size doesnt need to benefit the cows any more than in breeding dogs to have longer legs or different color fur needs to benefit them…. the genetics simply obtains because they are being mated with the desired traits.

              The you are arguing as though the traits are being tested and applied in the wild, but they arent, theyre in a controlled environment and thus would give the same effect of being beneficial and aiding.

  22. TerranceH says:

    Craig,

    You touched on something interesting. You said: If it is perfectly evolved, then won’t any further mutations only detract from perfection?

    And that’s the rub. Even scientists will admit that most microevolutionary changes are harmful, yet they expect us to believe that millions of these microevolutionary changes – of which most were harmful – eventually created the animals we see today? Species suffered through millions of harmful changes without going extinct. Amazing! And I’m crazy for believing that “In the beginning…”

    The whole theory is highly suspect, and I reject it.

  23. TerranceH says:

    So really your question is, “Why are their limits to selective breeding?”

    Because evolution is no longer taking place and you are working within set parameters, that’s why. And you see from the video above that selective breeding has wielded some huge cows.

    Once a species is evolved, parameters are set. You need also remember that natural selection takes millions and millions of years. For all we know, natural selection and evolution could be working on bus size cows, but we won’t see it in our lifetime. It may not happen for another 100,000 years.

    • T

      But that’s presuming a natural environment and the chance meeting of two cows who can breed the bigger traits. The farmer can intentionally pair the prime specimens. If evolution were true, then it wouldn’t take so long because we don’t have to wait on the natural happenstance of the right mates meeting.

  24. TerranceH says:

    John,

    You admitted that you’re not even talking about evolution. You’re talking about selective breeding. That is not evolution.

  25. TerranceH says:

    Your point is obviously wrong, John, even by the definitions evolutionists use.

    By definition, you’re talking about selective breeding. People try to equate that with natural selection, but the two are vastly different. For one, selective breeding has never wielded an entirely new species. Second, there is clearly a limit to the changes made (which seems to be your argument). Third, once human intervention has ceased, things go back to normal.

    The last point proves that you’re not talking about evolution. If those huge cows in the video were allowed to inseminate whatever cow they wanted, eventually things would return to normal.

    In no sense are you describing the evolutionary process.

    • T

      How am I not explaning this right? All selective breeding is, is a sped up version of what evolution would do in the wild, potentially. I know what evolution is, what I’m saying is that using the same genetic and biological mechanisms that evolution would, a farmer could exploit by eliminating the dangers and hazards of nature thus ensuring the biggest animals survive and pass on beneficial genes. By intentionally selecting the best mates, the the farmers ensure that the animals get the best genes.

      If the natural evolutionary process can turn a single cell into a dinosaur, then that same process with the hazards of life removed, and only the most beneficial traits and environment used, there should be no limit on what could be bred.

  26. TerranceH says:

    John,

    No. Selective breeding doesn’t produce mutations, John. THAT is the difference. Evolution is random mutations that, over time, change a population at the genetic level. Selective breeding isn’t creating new genes by mutation, but expressing those that already exist.

  27. TerranceH

    “And that’s the rub. Even scientists will admit that most microevolutionary changes are harmful, yet they expect us to believe that millions of these microevolutionary changes – of which most were harmful – eventually created the animals we see today? Species suffered through millions of harmful changes without going extinct. Amazing! And I’m crazy for believing that “In the beginning…””

    You have the answer:
    “If something works, it’s kept.”
    Harmful mutations makes individuals less likely to survive and reproduce. There are even mutations which are so harmful that lead to premature death.
    The point with evolution is that beneficial mutations, the ones which “work”, are the ones who are “kept”.

  28. Isu,

    Given that macro evolution is touted as a mindless and undirected process. How does the animals DNA know which mutations are beneficial? How do two animals who both have the “beneficial mutation” know to breed, so as to pass this trait on? Or from a mathematical/statistical perspective what are the odds of these random “beneficial” mutations (at the cellular level, no less) will all coalesce in the same time and place in order to produce significant evolutionary advances.

  29. Craig,

    The animals doesn’t need to know and it isn’t necessary two with the same mutation to pass a trait.
    Beneficial mutations make the individuals be more likely to survive and reproduce and therefore causing evolutionary advances along time.

  30. Isu,
    Yet, it is reality that the vast majority of mutations are harmful. Yet, it is reality that any advantage of said mutations are apparent only long after the fact. It is also a reality that it is virtually statistically impossible for such random mutations to result in what we see today.

    Interestingly, you’ve boiled it down the what so many Darwinists won’t admit. Time and random chance.

  31. Craig,

    Harmful mutations are out of the theory: they show no relevance in evolutionary development. A beneficial mutation can be an advantage for the first individual which has it. And you cannot make statistics without data.

    The existance of species along time with intermediate characteristics is evidence for the theory of evolution and a drawback for creationist dogma.

  32. Isu,

    So your answer is to simply ignore the fact that most mutations are harmful, while simply maintaining that the theory is correct, while not acknowledging the astronomical statistical improbability

    I’m glad to see your hangin’ with random chance plus time..

  33. Craig,

    I ignore the fact that most mutations are harmful since they don’t make the theory wrong and I don’t acknowledge your fictional statictics.

    You are the one ignoring evidence: the existance of species along time with intermediate characteristics.

  34. Isu,
    It must be nice to be able to just brush off the entire mathematical discipline of statistics, just because it doesn’t fit your pet theory.

    Actually, I am not ignoring any evidence. I have seen no evidence that demonstrates the existence of genuine transitional forms. Earlier, you pointed out Archeopteryx, which (based on what I’ve seen) is considered to be a bird, not a transition. If you have any actual examples, I’d be happy to consider them. FYI Piltdown man doesn’t count, nor do Haekel’s embryos.

    “For a cell to appear randomly would require 100 “functional proteins to appear simultaneously in one place.” The probability of this is astoundingly low — ten to negative 2,000. There are 2,000 enzymes necessary for random cell formation. The probability of random appearance is 10 to the negative 40,000th power.”

    “Author and biochemist Professor Franklin Howard noted, “We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.” There has never been a microbiological breakthrough to support evolution.”

    Again, if you have information that casts doubt on the mathematics of statistical analysis, please, let us see it. It seems strange to just simply dismiss an entire discipline in such a capricious way.

  35. Craig,

    You don’t need to brush off the mathematical discipline of statistics since when I said that I ignored your ficticional statictics I wasn’t refererring to the science.

    The Archaeopterix is a transitional fossil between feathered dinosaurs and modern birds. Your saying that it isn’t because it is a bird is nonsense.

    The probability you showed in the previous post has nothing to do with evolution since the theory postulates live (it already includes existing live and its cells). On the other hand, there isn’t enough data to calculate that probability, as my statistics teacher said, statistics is an exact science provided that data is true.

  36. Isu,
    Your last comment made no sense. If, as most suggest, evolution takes place at a cellular level, then the probabilities of time+random chance causing these beneficial cellular changes is most certainly germane. Again, if you’d actually like to provide something other than “because I say so.” to support your point, I’d be happy to hear it.

  37. John,

    “The archaeopteryx has been demonstrated to not be a mix between dino and bird.”

    Just my point. A species with “with intermediate characteristics”. That’s expected from a transient one.

  38. Isu,

    The whole point is that MOST of the microevolutionary changes that occur are harmful, and if they’re harmful, and occurring so often, you have to wonder how the species survived to become, well, what they are (we are) today. It makes little sense. It’s a stretch, it seems to me. And it’s like Craig said: you’re ignoring the statistically impossibility.

  39. Craig,

    You show up your ignorance about the issue once again. Mutations happen at subcellular level when there are DNA replication errors. Some changes are beneficial for the indidividual by changing, for example, its shape. The probability you mentioned is for building a cell from scratch, not for mutations.

  40. Isu,
    First, perhaps you should read the quote of John’s you copy pasted more carefully. You apparently skipped an important word.

    When I said cellular level, I was including sub cellular as well, sorry I wasn’t more clear.
    You still choose to ignore the point(s) which is/are. 1. The probability of building a cell from scratch is virtually zero. 2. If you don’t have a cell, then you don’t have mutations. 3. Since the vast majority of mutations are harmful, the statistical probability of the type of macro evolution you are committed to remains minute. 4. Perhaps the concept of vast majority of mutations being harmful is confusing for you. This concept doesn’t exclude the possibility of some minority of mutations being helpful, it just makes the point that if 90% of all mutations are harmful, the statistical probability of successive helpful mutations is astronomical.

  41. TerranceH

    The individuals with harmful mutations are less likely to survive and to pass these mutations to descendants. On the contrary, the individuals with beneficial mutations are more likely to survive and to pass these mutations to descendants. That’s how evolution works and that means beneficial mutations tend to be present and harmful ones tend to disappear. So the point that most of them are harmful is irrelevant for evolution.

    • TerranceH says:

      It’s not irrelevant at all. All species undergo changes and MOST of those changes are harmful. I find it funny that despite the millions and millions of harmful changes that have occurred with each species, they are so immaculately evolved today. It doesn’t make much sense to me.

  42. Craig,

    “First, perhaps you should read the quote of John’s you copy pasted more carefully. You apparently skipped an important word.”

    You are right, I missed a word.
    I missed a word unintentionally whereas you (and John) seem to be missing intentionally whole sentences as:
    “The Archaeopterix is a transitional fossil between feathered dinosaurs and modern birds.”
    If it is a bird or not is irrelevant. The point is that it is a TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL between feathered dinosaur and MODERN birds.

    Points 1 and 2.
    You again missed one sentence:
    “the theory postulates live (it already includes existing live and its cells)”

    Points 3 and 4.
    They are answered in my previous posts.

  43. Isu,
    I actually haven’t missed sentences such as you suggest. What i have done is to disagree with your assertions re Archeopteryx. There is a significant difference. You assert Archeopteryx as a transitional form, yet a significant number of folks assert that it is a bird. You seem to have trouble grasping that the fact that you can assert a point does not mean that point is correct.

    “the theory postulates live (it already includes existing live and its cells)”

    I actually didn’t ignore this sentence as much as skipped it. Had it been intelligible I might have been able to deal with it, since it makes little sense, I ignored it.

    I’m not sure what you mean by “answered”. Again, simply dismissing something inconvenient is not the same as answering it.
    What it sounds like you are saying is that you are willing to ignore the statistical improbability of cells coming into being, and those cells coalescing into more complex life forms, while asserting that after the statistically impossible happened macro evolution can take it from there. It also seems like you are willing to ignore the statistical improbability of the minority on helpful mutations winning out over the vast majority of harmful mutations, because macro evolution must be correct.

    The problem is you just can’t get past random chance+time as an explanation.

  44. Craig,

    It’s classified as bird and birds are classified as a subgroup of dinosaurs. The point is that archaeopterix is a transtional form between the former dinosaurs and actual dinosaurs (MODERN birds). You need go back to school if you can’t tell apart the difference between “modern bird” and “bird”.
    Its being a bird is not an inconvenient nor a valid objection.

    Your “low” intelligence doesn’t mean it is not intelligible. In science and logical thinking a postulate is a basis assumed as true in order to make the reasoning. The theory of evolution postulates existing live (but simpler), so the origin of live is not in its scope and discussing it for evolution “inconvenience” is nothing but a red herring.

    Your saying that something is a inconvenient doesn’t make it an inconvenient. You seem to have trouble grasping that the fact that you assert a point does not mean that point is correct.

    I don’t want to waste more time talking to a fanatic who invents “inconvenients” and resorts to rethorics and irrationality in order to save his dogma.

  45. ” You seem to have trouble grasping that the fact that you assert a point does not mean that point is correct.”
    Yet, you choose to ignore the fact that this is the extent of the proof you offer.

    You also seem to think that name calling is some acceptable substitute for conversation.

    Again, you dismiss the statistical improbability by airily saying that “That’s outside the scope of the theory.”. Great, that means you have a theory founded on a premise that is literally statistically impossible.

    Yet, you expect me to waste my time talking with someone who resorts to name calling, evades questions, and can’t or won’t provide anything to back up your assertions, beyond “because I said so”.

    Thanks.

  46. Regarding Archaeopteryx.

    Some fossils of normal birds predate Archaeopteryx. In 1986, an article in Nature by Tim Beardsley talks about this. You’ll find it in Volume 322, August 1986, page 677.

    Archaeopteryx could not fly. And if it couldn’t fly, why have the feathers of a flying bird?

    There are other reasons to doubt Archaeopteryx status as a transitional fossil, but I find those most compelling.

    I appreciate the faith evolutionists have. It’s cute .

  47. TerranceH

    It’s irrelevant since the beneficial ones are the changes which prevail according to the theory. You are ignoring the theory to go against it. It doesn’t makes sense.

    I have searched the article:
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v322/n6081/pdf/322677b0.pdf
    It isn’t a “normal” bird since it has teeth, reptilian tail and clawed fingers.
    FYI, many consider Protoavis a chimaeric due to the circumstances of its finding and building.
    Anyway, changing a transitional fossil for another transitional fossil is useless for creationists.

    Chicken and ostrich cannot fly, we could ask the same question in case of creationism.
    As far as I know there is controversy in Archaeopterix flight, anyway he could have used its wings to glide.

    Thank you for your appreciation: it’s a faith based on evidence. I couldn’t say the same about faith based on a dogma and which is blind to reason and evidence.

    • TerranceH says:

      Isu,

      You seem to be having trouble getting from A to B. If most mutations are harmful, and each species has undergone millions and millions of harmful mutations, it seems improbable that the species would survive this crapshoot we call evolution. It doesn’t make much sense to me.

      By normal, I meant more prominent avian features.

      The article says,

      Fossil remains claimed to be of two crowsized birds 75 million years older than Archaeoptryx have been found in the 225-million-year-old Dockum Formation near Post, Texas. Sankar Chatterjee, a paleontologist at Texas Tech University, who found the fossils, says they have advanced avian features that place them closer to the ancestor of modern birds than Archaeopteryz and make them possible direct ancestors.

      I reject the notion that Archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil. Further, I reject this notion that Protoavis is a transitional species. Many modern birds have elongated tails, clawed fingers, and teeth, so I don’t know how it can be intelligently argued that Protoavis is too reptilian to be considered a bird by today’s standards.

      Perhaps you should read what I said again. Why does it have the feathers of a flying bird? You do realize that the feathers of an ostrich are quite different than the feathers of flight-capable birds, right?

      Evolution is based on nothing close to evidence. It’s based on assumptions.

  48. TerranceH

    You are playing deaf.
    The harmful mutations dissapear if they aren’t passed to descendancy. A mutation so harmful that it is incompatible with life is not passed to descendancy since the individual die before have it. The more harmful the less likely to prevail, and the more beneficial the more likely to prevail.
    You keep your wrong assumption that harmful mutations are equally passed, an assumption that has nothing to do with the theory.
    As I said: you are ignoring the theory to go against it and it doesn’t makes sense.

    “By normal, I meant more prominent avian features.”
    Sorry, but “normal” has another meaning. It seems an ad hoc redefinition.

    “I reject the notion that Archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil. Further, I reject this notion that Protoavis is a transitional species.”

    Sure, you have to do it to keep your dogma irrationally.

    “Many modern birds have elongated tails, clawed fingers, and teeth”

    If there are many you could mention more than one species with reptilian tail, clawed fingers an teeth.
    I have never seen none in my entire life, despite being “normal”.

    “so I don’t know how it can be intelligently argued that Protoavis is too reptilian to be considered a bird by today’s standards”

    I don’t see any relevance. Even the Archaeopteryx is considered a bird.
    You rethorically insist asking for species in transient “groups” when there aren’t such classifications. The theory talks about transient states among “species”.

    “Perhaps you should read what I said again. Why does it have the feathers of a flying bird? You do realize that the feathers of an ostrich are quite different than the feathers of flight-capable birds, right? ”

    Ok, if you meant “flight feather”, then change my previous statement by:
    Many steamers ducks cannot fly, we could ask the same question in case of creationism.

    “Evolution is based on nothing close to evidence. It’s based on assumptions.”

    Evolution is a theory and the transitional fossils are the evidence which confirms it along with the discovering of DNA and its replication.

    Creationism would have a point if the same species would have remain along time but fossil evidence shows it isn’t so.
    Creationism is the assumption which is proved to be wrong and it’s not based in evidence but in dogma.

    • Isu,

      You continue to ignore the glaring fact that most – over 90% – of all mutations are harmful. Not benign, but harmful! Yet these millions of harmful mutations didn’t seem to disrupt the evolution of the species. Fascinating!

      The problem with evolutionists is their penchant to explain away every improbability and inconsistency.

      In comparison to Archaeopteryx, Protoavis is a “normal” bird. You’re backpedaling now because your ignorance has been revealed. You stupidly claimed Archaeopteryx is a transitional species, but of course all evidence indicates this is untrue. But you evolutionists, even ignorant ones, have to put those pesky creationists in their place, so you picked some random fossil and hoped nobody would catch on.

      If there are many you could mention more than one species with reptilian tail, clawed fingers an teeth.
      I have never seen none in my entire life, despite being “normal”.

      If you want to learn ornithology, take a class. I have neither the time nor the inclination to school you. Perhaps you could read a book. Then you might learn that the male birds in dozens of species have elongated tails which help facilitate mating. You might also learn that the Greylag Goose, Domestic Goose, Toucans, Bowerbirds, and many others have structures that can be considered teeth.

      You rethorically insist asking for species in transient “groups” when there aren’t such classifications. The theory talks about transient states among “species”.

      This is meaningless noise.

      Many steamers ducks cannot fly, we could ask the same question in case of creationism.

      Why all these argumentative fallacies? Where in this thread, or anywhere else, have I admitted to being a creationist? Nowhere. Learn to argue a point without fallacies, ‘eh?

      Besides, the Falkland Steamer Duck doesn’t have the feathers of a flying bird. Try again.

      Evolution is based on assumptions, which, if you don’t mind my saying so, is precisely what we’ve seen in this thread.

  49. Truly, there is little sense in discussing with you these fanciful tales you believe. Regurgitating the same sequence of stark silliness while refusing to demonstrate feasibility is not a proper argument. We all understand the process of evolution as it’s explained, but it makes no sense. I keep mentioning harmful mutations for a reason.

    According to a study by Hubert Yockey, the probability of evolving one protein molecule is 1 in 2.3 times ten-billion vigintillion. So if there were a single random mutation every second from the beginning time – figure since the universe began – that protein would only be 40% evolved by 2013, and that doesn’t even account for random mutations that cause harm and set the process backward. And we’re not talking about something as complex as a bird, but a simple protein molecule!

    Yockey, Hubert P. (1992) Information Theory and Molecular Biology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 255, 257.

    Evolutionists have nothing but assumptions and fanciful tales.

  50. TerranceH

    You continue ignoring the fact that harmful mutations are less likely to pass to descendancy.

    Once again Protoavis is not a normal modern bird and its truthfullness is controversial. And you avoid the fact that it would be a transitional fossil, not a true modern bird.

    The elongated tails you are talking about are made of elongated feathers not of bones. The species you mentioned would have vestigial teeth not a functional teeth. You have not mentioned any example of clawed fingers.
    Anyway you said “Many modern birds have elongated tails, clawed fingers, and teeth” and that means all the three characterictics in one individual in many species, such as the Protoavis.

    “This is meaningless noise.”

    It’s not since the theory is about the evolution of the species not of the groups of species as you pretend by your petty rethoric.

    “Why all these argumentative fallacies? Where in this thread, or anywhere else, have I admitted to being a creationist? Nowhere. Learn to argue a point without fallacies, ‘eh?”

    I used abductive reasoning. Everyone I find that oppose the theory of evolution are creationists.
    And you haven’t denied you aren’t one yet.

    “Besides, the Falkland Steamer Duck doesn’t have the feathers of a flying bird. Try again.”

    I said “many steamers ducks” not “all steamers ducks”. My point remains and I don’t have to try again.

    “Evolution is based on assumptions, which, if you don’t mind my saying so, is precisely what we’ve seen in this thread.”

    All reasoning is based on assumptions, so it’s irrelevant. The point is that evolution has evidence which confirms it.

    “Truly, there is little sense in discussing with you these fanciful tales you believe. Regurgitating the same sequence of stark silliness while refusing to demonstrate feasibility is not a proper argument. We all understand the process of evolution as it’s explained, but it makes no sense. I keep mentioning harmful mutations for a reason.”

    You are the one keeping your fanciful tale written on a book. The theory has sense and it is demostrated by transient fossils. You lie when you say that I refuse to demostrate feasibility since I present demostration whereas you blindly deny it. You insistence in the harmful mutations point means you don’t understand the theory or you are playing rethorics.

    You mentioned the “probability of evolving one protein molecule” (¿by itself?), whereas the theory of evolution talks about the evolution of species and according to our knowledge mutations are on DNA and DNA determines proteins.

    “Evolutionists have nothing but assumptions and fanciful tales.”

    You are mistaken, that’s a description of creationists.

  51. You continue ignoring the fact that harmful mutations are less likely to pass to descendancy.

    I have no need to overlook the subterfuge of a rabid evolutionist hell-bent on playing hide and seek with common sense. Like I said previously, you have trouble getting from A to B.

    A single mutation in a bacterium doesn’t produce a salmon. It doesn’t produce a bear. It doesn’t produce an elephant. It doesn’t produce a chimp. It doesn’t produce a human being.

    So to believe in evolution, you have to believe that a series of related mutations produced a change important enough to transform the species. And you have to believe that this happened trillions of times. But this is improbable. Any mutation – positive, negative, neutral – is exceptionally rare (10 to the 7th ), but add in the biological fact that most mutations are negative, the improbability climbs to 10 to 14th , or 1 in 100 trillion.

    Still, that’s only two related mutations. To fundamentally transform the species, you need many more. So what are the odds of three related mutations? It’s about 10 to the 21st, or one in a billion trillion. And what about the fourth mutation? Impossible, mathematically speaking.

    So I think you’ll find that your repeated explanation is not germane to my point. Evolution is mathematically impossible because harmful mutations exist, not because they may or may not be passed-on. And this is a point even diehard evolutionists believe is troublesome to their theory.

    Once again Protoavis is not a normal modern bird and its truthfullness is controversial. And you avoid the fact that it would be a transitional fossil, not a true modern bird.

    I dispute your contention that Protoavis is a transitional fossil. I believe it is a species of what you might call a normal bird.

    And yet again your relative lack of knowledge is on display. If Protoavis is an avian species, then dinosaurs must’ve evolved much quicker than is currently believed. It would disrupt the neat little story of dinosaurs and evolution we’ve all been fed, which is the only reason Protoavis is considered “controversial.” Scientists will accept nothing that challenges the faith!

    The elongated tails you are talking about are made of elongated feathers not of bones.

    This is patently false. Most reptiles have long tails with at least 21 vertebrae, but birds range from 8 to 24 vertebrae. How many vertebrae does Protoavis have? Exactly.

    The species you mentioned would have vestigial teeth not a functional teeth.

    Oh, please go read a book! I’m so tired of cleaning up your verbal diarrhea for the audience.

    For example, the Domestic Goose uses its teeth to cut the shoots and grasses it consumes as a large portion of its diet.

    You have not mentioned any example of clawed fingers

    What? You’re talking about a talon! Birds have different talons. It depends on the species. You see one that looks strange and automatically assume it’s not avian? Ridiculous.

    I used abductive reasoning.

    Nah. You made an assumption based on nothing. I expected it, though; it’s common among evolutionists. You guys are so good at making assumptions.

    And you haven’t denied you aren’t one yet.

    My view on the origins of life is irrelevant to this discussion. You label me a creationist because the title has become a convenient character assassination upon which evolutionists can lean when their arguments fail.

    I said “many steamers ducks” not “all steamers ducks”. My point remains and I don’t have to try again.

    No, your point doesn’t remain. You used the steamer duck as an example of a flightless bird with flying-feathers, but the steamer duck doesn’t have flying-feathers. So, yes, you must try again.

    There is no evidence for evolution. The evidence presented by evolutionists is stretched, contorted, and extrapolated into something so amazingly complex that most people can’t help but think it’s true. But all evidence against evolution is totally ignored.

    You are the one keeping your fanciful tale written on a book.

    Yet another argumentative fallacy.

    The theory has sense and it is demostrated by transient fossils.

    No. Dr. So & So finds a fossil and assumes it’s a transitional species, but it’s never been proven. You already gave us an example of a supposedly transitional fossil, remember? That worked out well for ya, huh?

    You lie when you say that I refuse to demostrate feasibility since I present demostration whereas you blindly deny it.

    No, you regurgitated a typical evolutionist line that doesn’t address the point at all.

    You mentioned the “probability of evolving one protein molecule” (¿by itself?), whereas the theory of evolution talks about the evolution of species and according to our knowledge mutations are on DNA and DNA determines proteins.

    I was talking about the evolution of the first cell, which evolutionists conveniently ignore and pretend is irrelevant to the theory of evolution. It’s not. For evolution to be true, there had to be some sort of organic life form from which to start.

    Besides, DNA is infinitely more complex than a single protein, so you’ve merely amplified my point. If it takes a protein so long, what are we to believe about the evolution of DNA?

    Evolution is absurd.

  52. TerranceH

    Saying that the implications of the theory are a subterfuge is purely a nonsense.

    There is no problem getting from A to B, since it isn’t done in a single step like you pretend.

    I don’t see a way of calculate mutation rate in a precise way, so I dismiss any of those statistics as my statistics teacher subtlety suggested.

    And once again: the beneficial mutations are the ones with count, since they are the ones to prevail.

    Protoavis is not what I call a normal modern bird. Modern birds do not have reptilian tail, clawed fingers and teeth. You have failed not only to show it normal in current birds but also in introducing any current rare (not-normal) species with all these characteristics.
    And it would be undoubfully a transient species since it has mixed characteristics between ancient reptiles and current birds.

    As I said, it is controversial because it was build by diverse pieces and could be a chimera. Anyway, diverging evolution by other branch won’t help creationism, because it’s still evolution.

    “This is patently false. Most reptiles have long tails with at least 21 vertebrae, but birds range from 8 to 24 vertebrae. How many vertebrae does Protoavis have? Exactly.”

    The article doesn’t say how many. Anyway, a chimera could have any.

    Anyway, I said that elongated tail you mentioned was made of feathers not of bones, so it is “patently true”.
    The bone tail of modern birds is short and not long such in the Archaeopterix or Protoavis cases. A vestigial tail is consistent with evolution.

    “For example, the Domestic Goose uses its teeth to cut the shoots and grasses it consumes as a large portion of its diet.”

    Domestic Goose can cut them with the beak, as birds do.

    “What? You’re talking about a talon! Birds have different talons. It depends on the species. You see one that looks strange and automatically assume it’s not avian? Ridiculous.”

    I said “clawed fingers”. F-I-N-G-E-R. Definitely, you are playing dumb.

    “Nah. You made an assumption based on nothing.”

    Patently false, since I have explained my basis.

    “I expected it, though; it’s common among evolutionists. You guys are so good at making assumptions.”

    You still haven’t proved that my assumption is wrong.

    “My view on the origins of life is irrelevant to this discussion.”

    On the contrary, if it is a fanatical one is relevant to this discussion because it makes it going nowhere.
    And we are not talking about the origin of live but about the diversity of species. Creationist mix up both of them.

    “You label me a creationist because the title has become a convenient character assassination upon which evolutionists can lean when their arguments fail.”

    It’s not a character assasination but a description.

    creationism:
    the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.

    “No, your point doesn’t remain. You used the steamer duck as an example of a flightless bird with flying-feathers, but the steamer duck doesn’t have flying-feathers. So, yes, you must try again.”

    There are several species of steamer duck and you mentioned only one. Take into account the ones which have them instead of using subterfuges.

    “There is no evidence for evolution.”

    There is, the point is that fanaticals of creationism blindly reject it.

    “The evidence presented by evolutionists is stretched, contorted, and extrapolated into something so amazingly complex that most people can’t help but think it’s true.”

    On the contrary, most people think it’s true since the base of the theory is simple and the evidence support it.

    “But all evidence against evolution is totally ignored.”

    Ad-hoc assumptions and theory distortions are totally ignored.

    “Yet another argumentative fallacy.”

    You haven’t proved that it’s a mistaken belief.

    “No. Dr. So & So finds a fossil and assumes it’s a transitional species, but it’s never been proven. You already gave us an example of a supposedly transitional fossil, remember? That worked out well for ya, huh? ”

    It exists in an intermediate period and it has mixed characteristics between previous and posterior species so it’s a transitional species.
    How else would you prove it is a transitional species? I know the answer: no way so that you keep your dogma.

    “No, you regurgitated a typical evolutionist line that doesn’t address the point at all.”

    It does, but your blind fanatism leads you to negate it.

    “I was talking about the evolution of the first cell, which evolutionists conveniently ignore and pretend is irrelevant to the theory of evolution.”

    False. The theory is about the evolution of the species, not cells.
    Origin of live is not in its scope.

    “It’s not. For evolution to be true, there had to be some sort of organic life form from which to start.”

    That’s postulated in the theory. The theory doesn’t explain how organic life started, and it is out of its scope.

    “Besides, DNA is infinitely more complex than a single protein, so you’ve merely amplified my point. If it takes a protein so long, what are we to believe about the evolution of DNA?”

    On the contrary, the more complex the more easy to have a change in it.

    “Evolution is absurd.”

    It isn’t.

    As I said to Craig, I don’t want to waste more time talking to a fanatic who invents “inconvenients” and resorts to rethorics and irrationality in order to save his dogma.

    If you don’t have any interesting and relevant point to support your dogma or dismiss evolution this conversation is over.

  53. Isu,

    It’s not often you see someone spend so many words saying absolutely nothing at all. I’m going to respond briefly to a few key items.

    I don’t see a way of calculate mutation rate in a precise way, so I dismiss any of those statistics as my statistics teacher subtlety suggested.

    You just can’t justify or demonstrate the feasibility of your argument. You know as well as I do that these figures are not pulled out of thin air; they are the result of studies, like those previously referenced.

    Your argument is like saying that Detroit, Michigan, can’t exist because you don’t know how to get there from Madrid, Spain. It’s an asinine argument. Trust me, there are a lot of things you don’t know. One of them, apparently, is that evolution is mathematically impossible.

    By the way, you should be embarrassed by your lack of knowledge. You keep rambling on about beneficial mutations, blah, blah, blah, totally overlooking the point I made earlier. The simple fact that negative mutations are so prolific make evolution a mathematical impossibility. This is a fact.

    But this isn’t a surprise. Evolutionists often demand that their “evidence” be thoughtfully considered while simultaneously rejecting out of hand all evidence to the contrary. You guys want nothing to interfere with that nice siesta in la-la-land, I guess.

    It’s also obvious you know nothing about birds. There are thousands and thousands of species, and many have more than 20 vertebrae, which necessarily means they have longer tails. Protoavis is no different than one of these modern birds.

    Once again, the Domestic Goose has teeth that functions as part of its digestive system, therefore you are incorrect. You said these teeth were vestigial organs. Absurd.

    No species of flightless Steamer Duck has the feathers of a flying-bird, so yet again you fail. But you go ahead and keep playing your games. Keep being purposefully vague or incomplete in your arguments so that you have something on which to lean…

    What we’ve seen here is yet another doctrinaire evolutionist who refuses to consider anything that contradicts his Darwinian faith. He neatly tries to turn this fact around on me, but it doesn’t work. He doesn’t know my view on the origin of life because I haven’t said anything, so for him to accuse me of sticking to “dogma” is simply hilarious. What dogma? You don’t even know, you ignoramus!

    These people are incorrigibles. They’ll hear nothing contrary to the Evolution Faith. The fact that evolution is a mathematical impossibility? Of no concern to those who ignore evidence.

    Like I said, evolution is absurd.

Any Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: