If half-wings are detrimental explain flying squirles.

Ostriches use their non-flight capable wings to aid in balance. Try
outruning one some day.

some things in nature are known as evolutionary niches.

Nature makes a place for everything or a thing for every place.

I personally feel this is all part of a great design.

Flying squirrels don't make sence. They never should have evolved those
membranes, if the laws of Natural Selection had anything to say about
it.


And Ostriches USED to fly. Or, at least, something in their ancestry
did. And it's shown that every few thousand years or so, their wings
shrink by about an inch. Those serve to prove my point, not rebuff it.

read Hidden History of the Human Race by Michael Cremo....we have been
here
millions of years or more...

I think our DNA was altered by visitors long ago...the junk DNA they
struggle
to identify may be the result of that..

That 'junk' DNA might be for something were not ready for yet.

Perhaps we will 'evolve' to use it.



If flying squirles are against natural laws why do they exist?

Those membranes allow them to escape from tree climbing predetators.

um to the evolutionists are still ahead. GO Monkeys!!!!!

<----- Human.

I truly believe tha the Genome Project is never going to suceed in
maping human DNA. They are maping only the physical portion of our
blueprint.

The Double Helix is a 3 diminsional representation of what makes us in
the world of physical reality yet we are but an extension in that world
from a world of spiritual reality. (our bodies die but we go
elsewhere).

What if there is another strand, instead of a Double Helix what if there
is a Triple Helix with links into a spiritual world? An entire strand
of attributes that we have yet to explore.

I have asked this question before. Anybody got enough knowledge to even
guess at where the links might be in a DNA strand. Perhaps in the
'Junk' parts that were mentioned above.

voyiers religion of evolution tells him that you must be simple to
believe in creationism. despite the odds, despite all the hoaxes
concerning the elusive missing link, despite the enormous complexity and
inter twining of all the variuous life forms. my first post stands.
evolution takes a lot more faith to believe than creationism if one is
willing to look at it objectivly.

Aye you have a point ram

Despite all the hoaxes, despite all the claims of here is christ there
is christ, despite all the 'faith healers', poisoners, bingo parlors,
... I still have faith in god.

Evolution as religion...

akkk

Evolution is a man made theory...

But then... so is creationism.

There was a time, when I tried every means to 'fill-in-the-blanks" of my
questions regarding the faith of my parents. I was so proud of myself
for coming up with something that would allow the creationist point of
view to co-exist with science. It smacked of something Poet attempts to
say when he posted.

"If it does happen, (referring to eveolution)it's due to another force
that has nothing to do with ordinary nature. I've little doubt that our
Creator would establish evolution as a method of construction and
regulation. A micro-management program so there wouldn't need to be a
Divine Miracle every time the climate changes a couple degrees or a
species wanders somewhere new."

My theory was a bit more "evolved" I think, as I had gone so far as to
explaing that God created a watch dog over the universe and called it
Nature. It was the job of Nature to see that extiction could be avoided
if the animal/human could be changed to adapt to new enviornments. Of
course I was 10 when I came up with this whole theory of mine. It makes
for a nice fairytale but if it was true, as a pastor once pointed out to
me, it would have been explained in the Bible. So I continued on my
journey.

AB posts-

That 'junk' DNA might be for something were not ready for yet.

Perhaps we will 'evolve' to use it.

Actually, 'junk' DNA has a lot of purposes. We can identify that our
bodies still remember (most) of the codes for gills. And it exists on
the end of our genetic code, which allows us to live longer. It forms a
"cap"- every time a cell divides- it loses a tiny part of the gene code.
A copy of a copy of a copy and so forth, until the junk DNA wears down,
good DNA starts dying, and your body starts to break down. At about the
age of 35-40, this starts. By the time you're 70, your blood, skin, and
muscle cells have such trouble dividing that they sometimes die in the
attempt.

This aspect of aging also raises the risk of cancer.

AB-

If flying squirles are against natural laws why do they exist?

Those membranes allow them to escape from tree climbing predetators.


I know what they do. Just like I know what birds do. And it works very,
very well- to these species' benefits. But it is impossible that natural
selection, alone, could allow them to have had them in the first place.
However they got those abilities- it might be natural- but it is NOT
evolution or natural selection in any sence that we understand it.
Meaning those theories are, at best, incomplete.

I have studied the processes of evolution in great detail over much of
my life. Most people have a very limited biological view of evolution
based on DNA and genetics. Their understanding of the main ideas or
evolution are most often quite incorrect with respect to what the
evidence is actually suggesting.

When I hear people talking about a ‘guiding force’ or ‘missing links’ or
the ‘unlikelihood of certain things evolving by chance’ all they are
really telling me is that they genuinely don’t understand how evolution
works.

It’s also quite absurd to suggest that something like half-winged birds,
or bats would have never naturally evolved. My immediate question to
them would be, “So then why would a god create such ridiculous
creatures”. It never ceases to amaze me how people will put down
science for reasons of ‘lack of proof’ only to turn around and embrace a
religious superstition that even they freely admit has absolutely no
proof behind it at all. That’s absurdity beyond absurdity.

As far as I’m concerned the observational evidence that evolution has
occurred is as sound as the evidence that the earth is a sphere that
revolves around the sun. If a person is going to reject evolution they
may as well also claim that the earth is flat and is the center of the
universe. If you’re going to ignore observational evidence why draw any
lines at all?

I personally believe that the evidence for genetic evolution is as
rock-solid as can be. I studied biology for many years and I’m
thoroughly compelled by the evidence. To me, it’s obvious the evolution
occurred.

However, I wasn’t satisfied with just the biological evidence for
evolution. I wanted to understand how DNA itself evolved. For that I
had to dig beyond biology and take courses in chemistry and physics.
After studying those subjects in great detail I now understand how the
DNA molecule had naturally evolved from the carbon atom. Any ‘magic’
in this process lies in the physical characteristics of the carbon atom.

Trying to understand why the carbon atom has the properties that it
exhibits has eluded even physicists. I mean, we can explain it in terms
of the Pauli Exclusion principle of fermions. But ultimately we don’t
understand why fermions (quarks and electrons) have the properties that
they have. String theory is the latest attempt to search for answers in
this area, but it is unclear at this stage whether string theory will
succeed in this quest.

In any case, the process of evolution has been as well-confirmed as
anything else we know. To deny that evolution actually occurred would
be no different than claiming that the earth is flat and is at the
center of the universe. I mean, you’d really have to reject a myriad of
scientific evidence to claim that evolution never occurred. As far as
I’m concerned it’s as proven as anything we know.

Red and Poet suggest:
"If it does happen, (referring to eveolution) it's due to another force
that has nothing to do with ordinary nature”

What is ‘ordinary nature’?

Is there a ‘driving force’ behind evolution? Well, yes and no.

Yes, there is a ‘driving force’ behind evolution. That ‘force’ comes
from the fact that atoms have particular shapes and behaviors and
combine in ways that are consistent with the ‘laws’ of physics. That’s
the driving force behind evolution.

That’s the only ‘force’ that needs to be at work. There’s no need for
a guiding hand that constantly guides the process. Any ‘guiding hand’
(it if exists) did its work when it designed the atoms and the laws of
physics. There is no need to continually ‘guide’ the process after
that.

Think of the atoms (and the laws of physics) as being the faces of dice.
When you roll dice you have no idea what number will come up. However,
you know what numbers can’t come up! You know that you can’t roll less
than 2 or more than 12. You also know that you can only get whole
numbers between these two extremes. So while you have no idea of
precisely what numbers will come up, you do know what ‘possible’ numbers
can come up.

So when you throw the dice and roll a 7 say. Did you ‘guide’ that seven
to come up? No you didn’t. Any whole number between 2 and 12 could
have come up. You only had control over it in the sense that you had
built the dice. But when you actually roll the dice you have no clue
which number will come up.

Think of it this way. Human beings are a lucky 7. We came up on planet
earth. Was our evolution ‘guided’ by some force the whole way through
the roll (the process of evolution)? No it wasn’t. Something else
might have come up. It was ‘chance’ that humans evolved on planet
earth. But it was no ‘accident’. Something on the face of dice had to
come up and humans were just one of the possible things that ‘could’
have come up.

This is the way that the universe works. Therefore this is the way that
god works no matter how you believe in god. This is the way that god
designed the universe. God designed the universe in such a way that it
does not require constant guidance. The ‘guidance’ is built into the
design of the universe like faces are built into dice.

Evolution doesn’t deny god. It just reveals to us how god works.

By building the ‘guidance’ into the universe, god was able to come along
for the ride. God is with us intimately. Not watching over us from
above.

To deny evolution in favor of the idol worship of ancient superstitious
dogma is to do nothing more than reject the real living god in favor of
a manmade fairytale.

Those who reject evolution are doing nothing more than rejecting the
ways of god.

Why cling to dogmatic superstitions when god’s truth is being revealed
to you in the very nature of the universe?

Poetnartist wrote:
" Flying squirrels don't make sence. They never should have evolved
those membranes, if the laws of Natural Selection had anything to say
about it.”

Statements like this Poet are total nonsense. Your statement is
entirely a personal opinion made by someone who obviously doesn’t
understand the fundamental principles behind evolution.

You claim that flying squirrels should have never evolved because they
don’t make ‘sense’ to you?

Excuse me whilst I go have a belly laugh.

Poet>

re your post about flying squirels.
'I know what they do. Just like I know what birds do. And it works very,
very well- to these species' benefits. But it is impossible that natural
selection, alone, could allow them to have had them in the first place.
However they got those abilities- it might be natural- but it is NOT
evolution or natural selection in any sence that we understand it.
Meaning those theories are, at best, incomplete.'

That is exactly how natural selection works. Those squirels that could
not escape from the tree vs a predator died taking their genetics with
them. Those squirels that could escape did passing on the genetic trait
(wing membranes) that allowed them to escape. Evolution at its most
basic.

As you fail to pick up. EVOLUTION lacks the ability to "work uphill" so
to speak.

There's plenty of half-wings. But those wings are evolving "backwards"
into non-existence. They're NEVER getting larger in any species that
can't actually fly.

So, wings fall under the evolutionary umbrella once they've already
existed.

But until they come into being, evolution does its best to make sure
they don't come into being. So something that can blatently defy the
laws of evolution and natural selection created flying animals.

This does not mean that evolving wings cannot be natural- it merely
means they can't under any observed biological law or theory. For all we
know, there's a perfectly natural way. But it isn't evolution or natural
selection or anything CLOSE to them.



Now, if you could be so kind as to explain why wings exist, despite
the *fact* that all observed evolutionary examples show wings being
phased out in all life that cannot already fly.

Now, to the squirrels, just for fun.

Example- ordinary squirrel. For some reason, with tiny membranes. It
can survive normally, and breeds.

Its children cannot leap any further, or fall any better, than normal
squirrels. They're not better.

By some (evolutionarily impossible) miracle, the membranes get larger-
this takes thousands of years.

These new, partial-winged squirrels still cannot leap further, still
cannot fall better. And the membranes cause problems. Get infected. Get
torn.

The partial winged squirrels go extinct. End of story.



The only way wings can "evolve" is if they do it in a single
generation. Period.

And all this occurs a million generations before any "flying squirrel"
gets a chance to glide even an inch further than their membraneless
counterparts.

HEY ABRA PLEASE re-read my post. The one you took this exerpt out of:
Sun 04/22/07 08:39 PM
Red and Poet suggest:
"If it does happen, (referring to eveolution) it's due to another force
that has nothing to do with ordinary nature”

Notice the quotes? that was me quoting Poet and responding to that same
idea. I'm in total agreement with you. I have not taken the classes
you have, but give me some due here. My lack of Classroom theory has
not hindered, all this little brain is capable of getting from my own
reading, from ending up in the same place in belief on this topic as
you.

Red wrote:
" Notice the quotes? that was me quoting Poet and responding to that
same idea. I'm in total agreement with you. I have not taken the classes
you have, but give me some due here..”

Sorry Red, I didn’t mean to imply that you don't understand evolution.
But I did want to explain why it’s not necessary to have a continually
guiding force for evolution to work.

Poetnartist
“Now, if you could be so kind as to explain why wings exist, despite the
*fact* that all observed evolutionary examples show wings being phased
out in all life that cannot already fly.”

First of all, I disagree with your statement here. Can you point to any
respectable source of evidence that supports this, or is this just
another one of your personal opinions”

As far the explanation of how this can happen with respect to some
species, the answer is very simple.

Evolution is not ‘goal-oriented’. Evolution doesn’t purposefully try to
create wings. If wings evolve among a species and prove useful to their
survival then the individuals among that species that have the best
wings will live on to procreate and the species itself will continue
toward having more efficient wings.

On the other hand, if a species that has wings no longer depends on them
for its survival then those wings may very well fade out of the species.
Why? Because the individuals that have poorly developed wings will
procreated to have offspring that have poorly developed wings.

Things most certainly can ‘evolve’ out of a species. Evolution has no
preset ‘goals’ with respect to wings.

The idea of half-winged creatures continuing to lose their stubby wings
in no way contradicts the idea of evolution. That argument simply
doesn’t hold water. It also shows an incorrect idea that evolution
somehow had ‘goals’. Evolution has no goals, not even survival.
Survival is NOT a ‘goal’ of evolution. Survival is simply want drives
evolution.

If you think that flying squirrels were somehow a ‘goal’ of evolution
you are terribly mistaken. That would be like rolling dice and when you
see a 7 come up you claim that it was the ‘goal’ of the dice to roll a
7.

Flying squirrels were merely something that was ‘possible’. They ‘came
up’ in the roll of evolution because it was possible for them to ‘come
up’. And not for any other reason.

All of the so-called ‘complaints’ that you have with the theory of
evolution fit into the theory perfectly well from my point of view.
None of your arguments are even valid arguments against the idea of
evolution.

All you doing is showing me that you don’t genuinely understand
evolution. You seem to think that evolution has some kind of
‘predetermined’ purpose. And you’re arguments are geared toward
arguing that this imagined ‘predetermined’ purpose can’t possibly be
true.

If I believed that evolution was like that then perhaps I’d be compelled
by your arguments. But I do understand evolution as having
‘predetermined’ purposes.

To put it as simply as I possibly can; You seem to be viewing
‘evolution’ almost as a consciousness or a purposeful design that has
survival as its ‘goal’

That’s totally the wrong picture. Evolution has no ‘goal’. Survival
is merely what drives it. So something specific like wings may come
and go. Wings are not the ‘goal’ of evolution. Evolution doesn’t
‘consciously’ design things like wings for the purpose of survival.
Wings are just something that’s possible. When they appear and how well
they might do is entirely a random a thing. And if they are phased out
in animals that don’t use them it’s no big deal. No mystery. No reason
to denounce evolution if you genuinely understand how it works.

In short, your half-winged arguments against evolution simply don’t fly.

No, I'm saying evolution *doesn't* have a goal. But only something with
a "goal" could have produced winged flight.


There is no use for wings, until they're large enough to allow gliding
and/or flight. Which is millions and millions of years into the
evolutionary process. And there's good reason to get rid of useless
evolutionary traits, such as wings. Takes a while, for sure, but it goes
in that direction. There's no way, for example, we'll evolve a use for
our tailbone- we'll never evolve a tail- it'll never have a use until it
gets quite long. We've been getting rid of our tails.

However, the origin of the tail is obvious- it came from the tail fin
(also very useful). So on and so forth, and the evolution of different
types of tails is no surprise at all. But wings are "spontaneous"
chances in arms. Arms, also useful in many species. But not arms with
functionless splats of feathers and/or membranes.


I understand evolution. You're simply failing to understand what I'm
saying. Because you're answering the wrong questions. Actually, you're
answering NO questions and simply repeating to me the things I already
know and, sometimes, have stated myself.