Posted on 06/05/2009 8:25:33 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
I don’t need to take another look, I get it the first time around.
And as far as naming one example...origins. To the tune of lawsuits to make sure the cult is able to be propped up.
I get on my knees for no man nor god. I would die first. I have no problem with your doing it but understand that your suggestions that I follow your example will be barfed upon.
Please elaborated. I have no idea what you are talking about.
Oh, okay. I thought you wanted something like a flying elephant or whale.
had a rather enormous wing span according to fossils,
Some did, some didn't. The biggest got up to 25-30 feet, but there's an extinct bird with a wingspan almost as wide, the Argentavis magnificens:
yet evolution doesn’t, over ga-jillions of years, account for other equally larger animals flyng such as pterodactyls did, why is that?
Dunno. Why should it?
Huh? How on earth could you not know...have you missed all the threads you’ve been on?
It's not a matter of me wanting that...but rather wanting to know what limits all this, let alone makes it possible and it does bring up an interesting question, what is it that limits any animals from growing some wings and, regardless of size, from flying period?
Dunno. Why should it?
If it's all supposedly without intelligence, totally random, without design, without purpose, then it's more than fair to ask these questions, particularly when so many liberals DEMAND children be programmed into their cultish way of thinking; all too often to the point of suing others who dare ask these kinds of questions of them, (let alone offering a better explanation, ie. intelligent design/creationism, etc).
Why don't humans just sprout wings for instance? Right now I can think of several reasons why wings would be beneficial and advantageous...driving in and around Atlanta often has me wondering why I don't have the ability to fly over messes. We can design devices to do exactly that, with our God-given intelligence. So by playing by your own rules of no intelligence allowed, why don't we have wings by now?
If ALL life came from a single celled organism, and all this variety comes from a single common ancestor, some animals through natural selection developed the ability to fly while others did not.
Why?
And saying "we don't know yet" or "just wait" or "be patient for another ga-jillion years" is a total cop-out. (We've had enough ga-jillion years to see plenty of variety!) Particularly when squealing any other view outside evolution isn't "science".
What is it about so-called "natural selection" that ultimnately determines which animal eventually flies and which do not and why? And what is it exactly that determines the rate of this so-called natural selection process which allowed for instance bats to fly?
And it's not just a certain animal kingdom, phyla, etc...insects, mammals as well as birds can fly for instance, moreover some animals with wings can't fly, while others without wings, come real close (flying squirrels), etc.
Why is that?
Ok. I get it. You can't name one. You could have saved us a bunch of trouble by just saying so.
Origins. You DO actually have to read. I casn’t read for you too.
Well, some of it is simple aerodynamics and structural considerations. Think of the size of the wings an elephant would need in order to fly, then think about the muscles it would need to control those wings, and the skeleton that would be needed to support the muscles and the forces on the wings...at some point, it just doesn't work.
If it's all supposedly without intelligence, totally random, without design, without purpose, then it's more than fair to ask these questions,
But if it is random, then asking why we didn't get a certain result is like asking why the dice didn't come up 11. They just didn't, that's all.
Why don't humans just sprout wings for instance?
No animals just "sprouted wings." If you look at the non-insect animals that fly, you'll notice that they have four limbs, just like us, and the two front limbs (or part of them) act as wings. So given that we're stuck with a four-limb body plan, we'd have to be in an ecological niche in which the changes necessary to turn our arms or hands into wings were favored over keeping them the way they are.
Why?
I tend to agree that it's a philosophical difficulty with evolution that we don't know what features natural selection favors until after the fact. But it's not a practical difficulty, just a philosophical one. It's like asking why a river follows a certain course--because it's the path of least resistance. How do we know it's the path of least resistance? Because the river followed it.
Yes of course, but WHY "at some point does it just not work" and at what point, and why aren't there more animals flying up to that point and frankly a few a fraction beyond this arbitrary point? When airplanes first flew, it made no sense that we saw 747's flying within 2 weeks of the Wright brothers, but this is ga-jillions of years we're talking about...we should be seeing more animals flying, heavier animals flying and for that matter animals swimming, AND flying and running their own businesses on the side by now, logically speaking.
Moreover, when it DOES work, why not say for instance didn't all mice, or even some mice or some rats, etc. develop wings like their bat cousins did?Or how about little foxes? Wombats? Why didn't they develop pouches like kangaroos, this would be very useful I would think when flying.
But if it is random, then asking why we didn't get a certain result is like asking why the dice didn't come up 11. They just didn't, that's all.
WOW, how utterly convenient for you! They just didn't that's all? Kind of like all the belly-aching from libs: "God-did-it" only in reverse! GOT it.
No animals just "sprouted wings." If you look at the non-insect animals that fly, you'll notice that they have four limbs, just like us, and the two front limbs (or part of them) act as wings. So given that we're stuck with a four-limb body plan, we'd have to be in an ecological niche in which the changes necessary to turn our arms or hands into wings were favored over keeping them the way they are.
Yeah, I know, I know, ga-jillions of years, wings didn't just sprout overnight, which is missing the point, what determined wings in some animals and not in others? And your ecological niche argument falls flat because mice and bats, before bats developed wings, were living in the same eco-niche. The same premise falls flat with humans losing tails. There's no magical eco-niche that determines this either. It's all made up pie in the sky nonsense.
I tend to agree that it's a philosophical difficulty with evolution that we don't know what features natural selection favors until after the fact. But it's not a practical difficulty, just a philosophical one. It's like asking why a river follows a certain course--because it's the path of least resistance. How do we know it's the path of least resistance? Because the river followed it.
LOL! Circular reasoning at it's best! And make no mistake very much indeed it is a practical problem, so much so that people are doubting your excuses and nonsense. PRACTICALLY SPEAKING even small children know better. NO WONDER it's necessary to silence all dissent!
Very enlightening, thanks!
Really? Okay: because what we have to make animal wings out of is bone, muscle, and skin. At a certain size, a wing made out of those materials is going to be unable to support its own weight--the structural material (bone) isn't strong enough. And at a certain size, the muscles that make those wings flap are going to have to be attached to the body at a place strong enough to support the stresses involved. Do you understand that there are similar limitations to the size of an airplane?
hould be seeing more animals flying, heavier animals flying and for that matter animals swimming, AND flying and running their own businesses on the side by now, logically speaking.
Um...why? Just because something could evolve, doesn't mean it will evolve. This is something you made up, not something evolution promises.
why not say for instance didn't all mice, or even some mice or some rats, etc. develop wings like their bat cousins did?
Because there are still ecological niches for mice and rats as they are. The bats managed to exploit a new one, but that doesn't mean the old one disappeared. You're stuck on this idea that there is some standard of "better" that evolution always tends towards and that every animal has to always be changing in that direction.
Why didn't they develop pouches like kangaroos, this would be very useful I would think when flying.
There is, in fact, a flying marsupial.
WOW, how utterly convenient for you!
You asked a dumb question--don't blame me because you don't like the answer. You really think there's an answer for why a random event doesn't happen?
As the rest of your post trails off into your usual combination of ignorance, bluster, and rudeness, I'm starting to regret that I ever tried to answer your questions reasonably and respectfully.
Let me remind you of what we are talking about. You claimed that science has all the answers that nobody understands. Out of "all" those ununderstandable answers, I asked you to name one. You respond "origins." If "origins" is an answer that nobody understands, then what is the question?
Come on, friend. Either play the game or give up and take your football home.
If you’d learn to quit interchanging terms like science with the cult of evolution, you’d not run into these problems.
I said evolutionists claim to understand the answers that no one else can seem to grasp, going so far as suing people, smearing them, and so forth when they dissent.
No cookie for you today!
But the point is, why haven't animals evolved to overcome all these limitations? After all, they started out as single celled organisms that overcame ALL KINDS of other things to eventually swim, fly and so forth in the first place.
Intelligence and design have allowed man to fly gigantic heavy planes, which was impossible with the technology available in 1903. And now, we're flying space shuttles in space, in the span of less than 100 years. An analogy for evolution would be a kangaroo jumping twice as far as before over 50 million years.
So what's preventing them from taking the next step?
So why can't animals evolve lighter weight, but superstrong bones to support more weight?
Kind of like we created a lightweight plane in 1903 that eventually led to the technology that allowed a multi-ton 747 to fly...WHY isn't this occuring in nature?
Do you forsee kangaroos that can jump the length of a football field in the next ga-jillion years?
Um...why? Just because something could evolve, doesn't mean it will evolve. This is something you made up, not something evolution promises.
Uhhhh WHY NOT? If it could evolve, what's stopping it? If it's supposed to be beneficial to the animal as evolution very much DOES claim with natural selection, why don't a few animals swim, fly AND flip pancakes?
Because there are still ecological niches for mice and rats as they are. The bats managed to exploit a new one, but that doesn't mean the old one disappeared. You're stuck on this idea that there is some standard of "better" that evolution always tends towards and that every animal has to always be changing in that direction.
But why did some fly and some remain behind? You can't say it was because of a niche, because some that occupied the same niche did, some didn't. What you get stuck on is excusing some invisible UN-natural force on limiting evolution. Of all the ga-jillions of possibilities, why aren't we seeing more and more impressive species jumps in shorter amounts of time? AND what makes it take ga-jillions of years in the first place? (Other than liberal convenience.)
You asked a dumb question--don't blame me because you don't like the answer. You really think there's an answer for why a random event doesn't happen?
As the rest of your post trails off into your usual combination of ignorance, bluster, and rudeness, I'm starting to regret that I ever tried to answer your questions reasonably and respectfully.
Thanks, I think this illustrates what children are up against when they encounter projecting liberal evo-cultists when serious examination takes place of their cult, as opposed to the sham of peer review.
Don't blame me for the obvious frustration you're having with your cult's inadequcies, get some help from a deprogrammer instead!
Name one (answers that no one else can seem to grasp). Any one.
Origins...as evidenced by the fact that it’s all too often to the point all dissenters are sued into silence.
Or how about responsible parents placing a sticker on a text-book explaining to students that evolution is a theory and not a fact?
Liberals can’t even define their own cult of evolution. And yet anyone that disagrees with them is somehow “hateful to science”.
Do you seriously bother to read any of the dozens of posts you’re on?
Do not, ever, dare to call me a liberal. Those are fighting words. If we were face to face, I would slap you.
“Do not, ever, dare to call me a liberal. Those are fighting words. If we were face to face, I would slap you.”True conservatives can take face to face flack without assaulting people.
Yours is the liberal position. That’s just how it is. You should understand this by now with the likes of Hissy Fit Matthews spewing evo-spittle all over your TV set.
Now that you have admitted that you have no ability for logical debate and must resort to ad hominem attacking, we have nothing left to talk about.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.