JoyfulRook
New member
Ahh, but the structure of bat wings are much different than the structure of bird wings.BillyBob said:
Have you ever seen a penguin swim? Their wings aren't designed for flying, they're designed for swimming.
Dr. Walt Brown on Evolution
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
GuySmiley
Well-known member
That's a nice picture of a mammal proving how wings came from arms, not legs. But since birds supposedly came from reptiles, you should show us the reptile with arms, or the bird with wings that are still useful as arms.BillyBob said:
Its just a guess, but I bet mamals didn't supposedly come from birds, and the earliest mamals didn't have wings. So the bat evolved wings entirely independent of birds.
aharvey
New member
Since Walt's argument (and the, er, logic, therein) doesn't specify a particular organism, that doesn't matter.GuySmiley said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bambiraptor2.pngGuySmiley said:
I'm sure you can think of others.
No reason for there to be one, of course; if wings progressed far enough before the other "bird-defining" traits evolved, then at some point you'd have a pre-bird ancestor whose wings were no longer useful as arms. It becomes kind of a definitional thing. At what point along this continuum are we no longer looking at a reptile but instead at a bird?GuySmiley said:
Here's one anyways:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoatzin
Yes, that's called convergent evolution (but don't tell carolus magnus!). It's also pretty likely that both of these groups evolved wings independently from insects and maple seeds!GuySmiley said:
GuySmiley said:
Right, so it shows that Walt Brown's argument is faulty.
A lot of dinosaurs were bi-pedal and the branch of dinos that birds supposedly evolved from walked upright and had 'arms'. T-Rex has a small set of arms that were nearly useless, for example.
I know of no such creature, but there are birds with wings that still have useful legs!!!
That is my understanding.
As did Insect wings. But the point that Brown made is that animals could not have evolved wings because in the interim he would have been left with a half evolved 'leg' that would have been cumbersome at least. That is clearly not the case.
JoyfulRook
New member
I don't see how you come to that conclusion at all.BillyBob said:
A few months ago I read a very good article imploring biologists and evolutionary scientists to be more careful in their descriptions of past evolutionary events. I've seen more than one popular science writer say "X trait evolved because to help survive under Y condition". I think perhaps a detailed searching of my posts may reveal that I've fallen into that trap more than a few times. Indeed, it is often easier to phrase evolutionary developments as the result of a need rather than as the result of selectional pressures under varying circumstances. As scientists, biologists, and hobbyists who understand the theory, we understand that developments phrased as "needs" did not truly occur because they were needed, but rather as a result of favored reproductive rates for those with those traits. We understand that this phrasing is simply a result of our looking back at the situation retrospectively, rather than an attempt to detail or describe the process of evolution. So by and large these things go unnoticed or uncommented on by evolutionist readers -- we know what they mean. But to anyone unfamiliar with biology or evolutionary theory, the statement conveys a false picture of what actually happens. More than once I've had conversations with creationists who sincerely believe that evolution occurs as a result of a need. One particular conversation I recall involved a creationist conveying his shock that scientists actually believe that lungs evolved because fish needed them to breathe air. Extending his misunderstanding of the theory even further, he then proceeded to challenge the theory by saying something along the lines of "Humans need X, why don't they evolve X?" And while this example may seem rather extreme, anyone who spends any time talking to people about the subject will find this mischaracterization of evolutionary theory runs rampant among your average lay creationist.
"Evolutionists say that organs and limbs -- that they develop because there was apparently some need, and then natural selection would take the small improvements and make things like wings." - Bob Enyart, 1/8/07, 5:18 into the show
So then you must understand my own dismay when Bob Enyart says something as terribly wrong as this. Not only is the statement incorrect, but it is being made to listenership who is almost certainly composed of large numbers of young earth creationists, most of whom do not have the time or interest to fact check criticisms of evolution. Even worse, Walt Brown, a man who should know better, did not find it important to correct him. Bob's mischaracterization in this case goes beyond a haphazard rephrasing -- he directly seeks to define what it is evolutionary scientists believe.
I did some searching for a mission or purpose statement on Bob Enyart's website, but I could not find one. I think it's safe to assume that part of the purpose of his show is to educate and inform his listeners (if this is not accurate Bob, please let me know). As a Christian radio show, he also has a responsibility to present information accurately and with integrity (of course I believe anyone in the position of any sort of leadership or educator also has this responsibility, but when I speak of Christian responsibility I speak of being accountable to someone higher than one's own self and society). I do not charge that Bob Enyart intentionally misled his listeners, but this leaves only his own ignorance of theory as the culprit for this disservice to his listeners.
"Evolutionists say that organs and limbs -- that they develop because there was apparently some need, and then natural selection would take the small improvements and make things like wings." - Bob Enyart, 1/8/07, 5:18 into the show
So then you must understand my own dismay when Bob Enyart says something as terribly wrong as this. Not only is the statement incorrect, but it is being made to listenership who is almost certainly composed of large numbers of young earth creationists, most of whom do not have the time or interest to fact check criticisms of evolution. Even worse, Walt Brown, a man who should know better, did not find it important to correct him. Bob's mischaracterization in this case goes beyond a haphazard rephrasing -- he directly seeks to define what it is evolutionary scientists believe.
I did some searching for a mission or purpose statement on Bob Enyart's website, but I could not find one. I think it's safe to assume that part of the purpose of his show is to educate and inform his listeners (if this is not accurate Bob, please let me know). As a Christian radio show, he also has a responsibility to present information accurately and with integrity (of course I believe anyone in the position of any sort of leadership or educator also has this responsibility, but when I speak of Christian responsibility I speak of being accountable to someone higher than one's own self and society). I do not charge that Bob Enyart intentionally misled his listeners, but this leaves only his own ignorance of theory as the culprit for this disservice to his listeners.
Last edited:
JoyfulRook
New member
:darwinsm:Shimei said:
- Status