Sunday, December 2, 2012

The Marvelous Flight Capabilities of Birds: Why Evolutionists Never Bluff

“Avian flight,” a new study explains, “is one of the remarkable achievements of vertebrate evolution.” Indeed, there is the “complex biotechnical architecture of avian wings,” the “magic structural wing asymmetries” so important for aeroelastic flight control, and the “extremely precise coordination of the complex wing beat motions, together with a perfect flight guidance and control performance.”

Then there are the flight muscles, sense organs and “extremely developed cerebellum” functioning as a guidance and control computer center. These “biological elements communicate with lightning speed like an autopilot as a biotechnical marvel with unimaginable precision.” As the paper concludes, “With their spectacular flight capabilities, birds are really the inimitable flight artists of nature.”

Unimaginable precision. Spectacular flight capabilities. Extremely precise coordination. How did random mutations create such marvels? Natural selection killed off the mutations that didn’t work, but otherwise was powerless to coax the miracle mutations. Evolution requires that the mutations leading to avian flight, and everything else for that matter, knew nothing of the need at hand. They were random with respect to function.

And yet, they created such wonders as avian flight. A remarkable design that our best engineers still cannot figure out. We know that it evolved, however, because evolution is a fact. And evolutionists never bluff.

56 comments:

  1. Origins - Formed to Fly with Dr. David Menton (dinosaur - bird evolution refuted) - video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eZ7VUgfH2g

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well Dr Hunter, given eons of time for illions of trial and error tests, birds are an inevitable outcome, just as long as they don't also have gills. That would wreck their alleged objective nested hierarchy (which their position doesn't expect anyway).

    ReplyDelete
  3. Cornelius Hunter

    How did random mutations create such marvels?


    By themselves they didn't. The functions arose through a long term iterative feedback process that allowed small random changes which aided survival and reproduction to accumulate. In bird lineages the process has been at work for at least the last 150 million years.

    You know that of course, but the DI pays you to lie about the matter so lie you do. How you justify such scurrilous behavior with your supposedly Christian ideals remains a major mystery.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So in other words, random stuff happens. When good random stuff happens it gets preserved, otherwise too bad. You see, there is no reason to wrap up this simple idea in esoteric lingo with a condescending
      attitude in an attempt to make it sound scientific.

      Delete
    2. And your step by step explanation,Joe?

      Delete
    3. Obviously no one needs one as the standards of science have been abandoned with the rise of evolutionism.

      Delete
    4. Go for it. Heck I bet you can't even provide a testable hypothesis for unguided evolution doingit.

      Delete
    5. Chubby Joe can't provide an example. He's a YEC who thinks God POOFED everything into existence <10K years ago.

      All science so far!

      Delete
    6. And notice that I did NOT ask for a step by step example. I just said there is no way to test thorton's claim, there isn't and no one knows how many steps were required or even if genetic changes can account for the physical transformations required.

      All science so far, is right, projector boy

      Delete
    7. Joe,
      Another lie as I have never said "Science has no evidence for evolution!!" - never

      So what is the scientific evidence for evolution? If you are sure it is. Insufficient then logically you would need to understand it to make a valid judgement.

      Delete
    8. LoL! The scientific evidence that gene frequenceies change over time is that gene frequencies change over time.

      That is all evolution is and that is all evolution does. Which ain't much but it is what it is.

      Delete
    9. Joe,you are certainly hard to pin down
      . All evolution does is change gene frequencies in populations. Do you believe this is true as well,but that TOE is insufficient to account for the change? That random mutations and errors in copies are not the source of new genetic variation ?

      Delete
    10. Changing allele frequency is variation.

      Intelligent Design is OK with evolution. It just says that most of the variation is not random, ie it is directed.

      Delete
  4. Steve Hanson

    So in other words, random stuff happens. When good random stuff happens it gets preserved, otherwise too bad. You see, there is no reason to wrap up this simple idea in esoteric lingo with a condescending
    attitude in an attempt to make it sound scientific.


    That "simple idea' is the essence of what Darwin first published in OOS way back in 1859. It's been expanded upon and confirmed 100 times over since then, and forms the basis for all work in virtually all the biological and genetic sciences.

    It goes by the catchy tag 'theory of evolution'. You may want to read up on it sometime.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis - David J. Depew and Bruce H. Weber - 2011
      Excerpt: We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes.,,,
      http://www.springerlink.com/content/845x02v03g3t7002/

      With a Startling Candor, Oxford Scientist Admits a Gaping Hole in Evolutionary Theory - November 2011
      Excerpt: As of now, we have no good theory of how to read [genetic] networks, how to model them mathematically or how one network meshes with another; worse, we have no obvious experimental lines of investigation for studying these areas. There is a great deal for systems biology to do in order to produce a full explanation of how genotypes generate phenotypes,,,
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/11/with_a_startling_candor_oxford052821.html

      Revisiting the Central Dogma - David Tyler - Nov. 9, 2012
      Excerpt: "The past decade, however, has witnessed a rapid accumulation of evidence that challenges the linear logic of the central dogma (DNA makes RNA makes Protein). Four previously unassailable beliefs about the genome - that it is static throughout the life of the organism; that it is invariant between cell type and individual; that changes occurring in somatic cells cannot be inherited (also known as Lamarckian evolution); and that necessary and sufficient information for cellular function is contained in the gene sequence - have all been called into question in the last few years.",,
      Undoubtedly, the trigger for change has been the discovery of extraordinary complexity in cellular processes as revealed by systems biology research. It is now necessary to refer to networks of interactions when explaining any aspect of cellular function. And the very existence of these networks defies the central dogma:
      http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2012/11/09/revisiting_the_central_dogma

      The next evolutionary synthesis: Jonathan BL Bard (2011)
      Excerpt: We now know that there are at least 50 possible functions that DNA sequences can fulfill [8], that the networks for traits require many proteins and that they allow for considerable redundancy [9]. The reality is that the evolutionary synthesis says nothing about any of this; for all its claim of being grounded in DNA and mutation, it is actually a theory based on phenotypic traits. This is not to say that the evolutionary synthesis is wrong, but that it is inadequate – it is really only half a theory!
      http://www.biosignaling.com/content/pdf/1478-811X-9-30.pdf

      The Origin at 150: is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight? - Koonin - Nov. 2009
      Excerpt: The edifice of the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair.
      http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2009/11/18/not_to_mince_words_the_modern_synthesis

      Delete
  5. thorton:
    That "simple idea' is the essence of what Darwin first published in OOS way back in 1859. It's been expanded upon and confirmed 100 times over since then, and forms the basis for all work in virtually all the biological and genetic sciences.

    Yes it is a simple idea but no it has NOT been tested and confimed wrt doing what darwin said it could.

    IOW there isn't any evidence for random mutations accumulating in such a way as to construct new body parts and plans.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, we know Chubs. In your happy little YEC world there isn't any evidence for evolution, baraminology is correct, the Earth is young, Noah's Flood was literal. Go have another donut.

      Delete
    2. Yeak loser, we understand that you have to lie in order to make yourself feel better.

      Delete
  6. Hey Thorton, man look at this beaut they just discovered:

    Souped-Up Hyper-Drive Flagellum Discovered - December 3, 2012
    Excerpt: Get a load of this -- a bacterium that packs a gear-driven, seven-engine, magnetic-guided flagellar bundle that gets 0 to 300 micrometers in one second, ten times faster than E. coli.
    If you thought the standard bacterial flagellum made the case for intelligent design, wait till you hear the specs on MO-1,,,
    Harvard's mastermind of flagellum reverse engineering, this paper describes the Ferrari of flagella.
    " Instead of being a simple helically wound propeller driven by a rotary motor, it is a complex organelle consisting of 7 flagella and 24 fibrils that form a tight bundle enveloped by a glycoprotein sheath.... the flagella of MO-1 must rotate individually, and yet the entire bundle functions as a unit to comprise a motility organelle."
    To feel the Wow! factor, jump ahead to Figure 6 in the paper. It shows seven engines in one, arranged in a hexagonal array, stylized by the authors in a cross-sectional model that shows them all as gears interacting with 24 smaller gears between them. The flagella rotate one way, and the smaller gears rotate the opposite way to maximize torque while minimizing friction. Download the movie from the Supplemental Information page to see the gears in action.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/souped-up_flage066921.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Evolutionists do not possess an objective way to determine if something is designed or not. Everything is assumed to have evolved without intelligent guidance. If we discovered creatures that possessed rockets and landing gear to take them to Mars and bring back soil samples, evolutionists would simply assume it evolved. For evolutionists there is no complexity for which evolution is not capable of. Evolution is a blank check for whatever is found or could even be imagined.

      Delete
    2. Neal,
      Evolutionists do not possess an objective way to determine if something is designed or not

      Not exactly true is it, the distinctive marks tools make is an objective way,physical evidence of agents capable of design/ construction another, written records of the construction is another.



      Delete
    3. So if I write down some construction records on how to make a mountain that means all mountains were designed?

      Delete
    4. Good question Joe. Geologists, in a sense, create construction records,based on our present knowledge how mountains came to be, so yes,basically everything is designed, is your question is everything the result of a plan by an intelligent agent?

      Delete
  7. Why is it that asking evolutionists for supporting evidence for their claims always leads to them becoming either belligerent or equivocating bluffers?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good ol' one note Chubs. "Science has no evidence for evolution!!" :D

      Tell us about the evidence for Noah's Flood and baraminology Chubs.

      Delete
    2. Another lie as I have never said "Science has no evidence for evolution!!" - never

      So I thank you for proving my point.

      And first you have to provide a testable hypotrhesis along with supporting evidence for your position so we will know what you will accept and you can't do you normal cowardly backpeddle-flail.

      So have at it or just let it be and continue to prove my point.

      Delete
  8. Thornton at it again, belligerence (as noted) seems to be the best response to the comment by Joe G that thornton has not even the slightest idea HOW MANY STEPS or HOW MANY genetic mutations must fit into the 150 million years to generate the massively complex but (heh heh) accidental avian flight systems. Thornton is completely helpless in the challenge, as I know from several years back when I asked him for an accounting of the number of genetic mutations for the generation of a simple structure, which one I can't remember. But our favorite middle aged tantrum writer keeps coming back here just like tar baby of modern myth. What a lost cause.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Msee,

      Joe declined to answer,perhaps you will be made of sterner stuff. Can you provide a step by step explanation of avian flight?

      Another question,is a step by step explantion the minimum requirement for all knowledge?

      Delete
    2. Yeah velikovskvs declined to answer, actually vel can only act like a little child- go figure

      Delete
    3. MSEE

      Thornton has not even the slightest idea HOW MANY STEPS or HOW MANY genetic mutations must fit into the 150 million years to generate the massively complex but (heh heh) accidental avian flight systems.


      No one in science does, since that information does not fossilize and isn't recoverable from extant genetic samples.

      It also doesn't have the slightest bearing on the veracity of evolutionary theory, any more than not knowing the exact weather every day for the last 500 million years means Chief Mountain wasn't really eroded out.

      Does the school you graduated from have a biological sciences department? Why don't make your IDiot demand of them, see how loudly they laugh before showing you the door.

      Delete
    4. Joe,
      Yeah velikovskvs declined to answer, actually vel can only act like a little child- go figure

      Declined to answer what, buddy? I simply asked you to lay out the step by step evolution of avian flight from your pov. I assumed from your non answer that you didn't have one. Do you? I just wondered if MSEE was up to the task.

      Delete
    5. Declined to support your position's claims, buddy. Declined to do anything but try to change the subject, buddy.

      Delete
    6. Interesting Joe, I haven't claimed a position,only asked for you,since you have dismissed mainstream science as incorrect,what you would substitute. Your answer seems evasive,why is that? Perhaps a personal insult would suffice to distract from your non answer.

      Delete
    7. Iteresting vel. Please provide evidence that I have dismissed anything. Ya see, vel, I cannot dismiss what doesn't exist.

      Also if you don't have a stake in this claim then back off as I don't deal with obvious intellectual cowards who can only try to turn the tables.

      Delete
  9. In general, the discussion has forgotten that mammels fly, the bats. Convergence is all through evolution. Ask Simon Conway Morris

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Convergence is all through evolution." Or, duplication that falls outside the lines of descent with modification. Just because evolutionists can give a contradiction to their claims a name, doesn't mean they have resolved the issue. The shallow thinking of evolutionists goes like this:

      1. Assume everything evolved because this is the only acceptable way to think.
      2. When evolution is contradicted, give the contrary data a name. Oh yes, well, didn't you know that evolution easily explains all of this, it's called convergence. Now, let's move along.
      3. Keep expanding the meaning of the theories of evolution to include convergence (or whatever) and give the impression that a couple little details need to be worked out even if nothing is known.
      4. Keep repeating the lie long enough and it becomes a fact. In other words, get comfortable telling the lie and it becomes a new reality in the minds of evolutionists.

      It's voodoo science

      Delete
    2. The convergence isn't identical, that's how you can tell they are distantly related.

      Delete
    3. Convergence doesn't have anything to do with any relatedness.

      Delete
  10. The "power" of evolution- evolutionists, like thorton, have evolved diarrhea of the mouth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    3. Thorton,
      Are you actually intent on shutting down the comments? Joe would like nothing more, I,for one,would not like to be manipulated like that. Joe is unredeemable, ( no offense ,Joe ) don't be a Joe.

      Delete
    4. Shut up vel- evos are the most belligerent ilk there is. For example, I don't want the comments shut down you liar.

      I would like to see evos banned if they just attack and have no intention of supporting their position.

      Delete
    5. velikovskys

      Are you actually intent on shutting down the comments?


      I really don't care one way or the other to be honest. It's not like any actual scientific discussion goes on here. CH only keeps this place so the IDCers can scream and yell and not feel so totally impotent as the real scientific world laughs at them, then ignores them.

      Personally I get a kick out of seeing the obese idiot Joe Gallien dance like a trained monkey. Ever since he made physical threats against me and my family a few years back I poke his fat ass with a stick every chance I get.

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    7. thorton lies as I never made any threats against him nor his family.

      Delete
  11. thorton:
    I really don't care one way or the other to be honest. It's not like any actual scientific discussion goes on here.

    That's mainly because we discuss evolutionism. And evolutionism isn't scientific. And that is why you are all upset.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joe G

      That's mainly because we discuss evolutionism. And evolutionism isn't scientific.


      You're right. "Evolutionism" isn't scientific. It's the cartoon version of ToE you and the rest of the IDiots use because you're too ignorant to understand the real one.

      Delete
    2. Nope. Evolutionism is the theory of evolution and no amount of thorton's lies will ever change that fact

      Delete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Jerry Coyne's Chapter on the Fossil Record Fails to Show "Why Evolution is True" - Jonathan M. - December 4, 2012
    Excerpt: Another paper published in the Journal of Morphology raises a further problem for the evolution of birds from theropod dinosaurs (Quick and Ruben, 2009). The paper reports,
    "Although crocodilian lung and cardiovascular organs are markedly less specialized than the avian heart and lung air-sac system, all living archosaurs possess four-chambered hearts and heterogeneously vascularized, faveolar lungs. In birds, normal lung function requires extensive, dorsally situated nonvascularized abdominal air-sacs ventilated by an expansive sternum and specially hinged costal ribs. The thin walled and voluminous abdominal air-sacs are supported laterally and caudally to prevent inward (paradoxical) collapse during generation of negative (inhalatory) pressure: the synsacrum, posteriorly directed, laterally open pubes and specialized femoral-thigh complex provide requisite support and largely prevent inhalatory collapse. In comparison, theropod dinosaurs probably lacked similarly enlarged abdominal air-sacs, and skeleto-muscular modifications consistent with their ventilation. In the absence of enlarged, functional abdominal air-sacs, theropods were unlikely to have possessed a specialized bird-like, air-sac lung. The likely absence of bird-like pulmonary function in theropods is inconsistent with suggestions of cardiovascular anatomy more sophisticated than that of modern crocodilians."
    Science Daily further explains,
    It's been known for decades that the femur, or thigh bone in birds is largely fixed and makes birds into "knee runners," unlike virtually all other land animals, the [Oregon State University] experts say. What was just discovered, however, is that it's this fixed position of bird bones and musculature that keeps their air-sac lung from collapsing when the bird inhales.
    Warm-blooded birds need about 20 times more oxygen than cold-blooded reptiles, and have evolved a unique lung structure that allows for a high rate of gas exchange and high activity level. Their unusual thigh complex is what helps support the lung and prevent its collapse.
    "This is fundamental to bird physiology," said Devon Quick, an OSU instructor of zoology who completed this work as part of her doctoral studies. "It's really strange that no one realized this before. The position of the thigh bone and muscles in birds is critical to their lung function, which in turn is what gives them enough lung capacity for flight."
    However, every other animal that has walked on land, the scientists said, has a moveable thigh bone that is involved in their motion -- including humans, elephants, dogs, lizards and -- in the ancient past -- dinosaurs.
    The implication, the researchers said, is that birds almost certainly did not descend from theropod dinosaurs, such as tyrannosaurus or allosaurus. The findings add to a growing body of evidence in the past two decades that challenge some of the most widely held beliefs about animal evolution.
    "For one thing, birds are found earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs they are supposed to have descended from," Ruben said. "That's a pretty serious problem, and there are other inconsistencies with the bird-from-dinosaur theories."
    But one of the primary reasons many scientists kept pointing to birds as having descended from dinosaurs was similarities in their lungs," Ruben said. "However, theropod dinosaurs had a moving femur and therefore could not have had a lung that worked like that in birds. Their abdominal air sac, if they had one, would have collapsed. That undercuts a critical piece of supporting evidence for the dinosaur-bird link.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/jerry_coynes_c067021.html

    ReplyDelete
  14. That's mainly because we discuss evolutionism. And evolutionism isn't scientific.

    thorton
    You're right. "Evolutionism" isn't scientific.

    Thank you for admitting that the theory of evolution, ie evolutionism, is not scientific.

    ReplyDelete
  15. It's very interesting that thorton makes these false accusations and bogus claims and runs away every time he gets called on them.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Quote from the article: "The study demonstrates conclusively, that concealed aeroelastic effects contribute essentially to the marvellous flight capabilities of birds. Certain structural wing asymmetries and specific anatomic peculiarities of the bony wing skeleton play thereby a fundamental role. An extremely precise coordination of the complex wing beat motions, together with a perfect flight guidance and control performance, are additional basic requirements for an efficient active flight. The birds dominate all of these requisites in a masterly manner. In a flight-mechanical control circuit, the large flight muscles, and many others in the wing, serve as actuators, the extremely marked sense organs act as flight sensors, and the extremely developed cerebellum takes the function of a computer as guidance and control centre. These biological elements communicate with lightning speed like an autopilot as a biotechnical marvel with unimaginable precision. Thus, the birds can precisely adjust and control their flight in all styles and situations without flow separation in a stable flight-mechanical and aeroelastic equilibrium. With their spectacular flight capabilities, birds are really the inimitable flight artists of nature. They are equipped with unique flight skills, all mysteries of which are obviously still not yet completely known."

    Notice all the design words and the awe and amazement at the amazing flight system, etc. These are not words that one would normally associate with evolution.

    It’s funny. Evolutionists use bad design as evidence against a Designer, but they never view good design as evidence for a Designer. Bad design is what you would expect from a bumbling process like evolution we are told, and yet on the other hand, we are told that evolution is also capable of producing such exquisite design that we marvel at it and can’t even fully comprehend it. Good design doesn’t faze evolutionists because they have faith in the ability of evolution to produce anything and everything given enough time. Time is the key to their story.

    On the other hand, creationists view good design as evidence for a Designer, but they do not view bad design as evidence against a Designer. The thought is that things can deteriorate more easily than evolve. So, space is given for things to devolve from their original good design.

    Besides, what is thought to be bad design is not always bad design. Sometimes it is a bit arrogant to claim something is bad design. It is an argument from ignorance and as we have so often seen, that can easily get us into trouble like with the junk DNA idea.

    No one would argue with the idea that it is much easier for things to break down than to fix themselves and improve themselves. Breaking down requires no intelligence, purpose, or intent. That can easily happen as we all experience so often. But, things never improve on their own. Improvement requires specific intelligence, purpose, and planning it would seem – at least this is true in the human world. So it comes down to what you think is more plausible. Complex organs writing their own software and coming up with new genes to enable new abilities happening by chance mutations, or, well designed systems suffering damage over time due to mutations.

    ReplyDelete