Flight feathers, easiest disproof of ...

Flight feathers, easiest disproof of evolution

Posted in the Evolution Debate Forum

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
DarwinPaul

United States

#1 Jan 19, 2014
Chuckles Darwin said:

"If it could be exhibited that any complex organ was, which could not maybe have been organised by numerous, successive, little adjustments, my theory would utterly break down."

The modern synthesis of evolution posits that evolution is driven by a combination of mutations and natural selection: mutations create new kinds of plants and animals and then selection weeds out the "unfit" from amongst those new kinds. In particular, natural selection does not create anything, it's an agency of stasis and not of change. It generally weeds out anything an iota to the left or right of dead center for a given species and is the cause of the stasis which the fossil record exhibits.

Consider feathers, which come in more than one form. Down feathers serve for insulation and are not that much different from hair or fur. An evolutionist could talk about fur mutating into down feathers and not sound totally stupid. But flight feathers are so totally different from down feathers that you'd need TWO mutations to get to them i.e. one mutation to get from fur to down feathers and then another to get from down feathers to flight feathers.

Flight feathers are asymmetric (one side shorter than other) and they pivot so as to open and let air pass through on upstrokes and close again on down-strokes and a the short side is the locking side. Flight feathers involve a complex system of barbules and hooks as the image shows to create the strength needed to bear weight. Down feathers don't have any of that stuff.

The question is, what kind of a mutation would cause down feathers to mutate into flight feathers ONLY ON THE CREATURE'S ARMS where they will be needed after other mutations turn those arms into wings??

Evolutionism basically amounts to a belief in magic. Flight feathers are one of the most easily grasped instances of this, but there are others which are just as bad.

Of course the undeveloped minds, the sociopath cons and liars (Atheists) on this forum will divert and name call. They won't address the issue head on. They will bring up any and all diversions so as to destroy any point of discussion to further their agenda of hate. So to the quasi humanoid mutant enemy warriors bent on the destruction of society, aka Atheists, have at it.

Thank You
HillStart

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#2 Jan 19, 2014
The earliest feathers were not exactly like down feathers OR flight feathers. Today's feathers are specialised forms that have evolved from the same ancestral form. You are greatly mistaken if you think feathers came about as a result of just two mutations.
DarwinPaul

United States

#3 Jan 19, 2014
HillStart wrote:
The earliest feathers were not exactly like down feathers OR flight feathers. Today's feathers are specialised forms that have evolved from the same ancestral form. You are greatly mistaken if you think feathers came about as a result of just two mutations.
Invalid!

A statement without any support, typical smoke screen which means you have no answer at all.
HillStart

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#4 Jan 19, 2014
DarwinPaul wrote:
<quoted text>
Invalid!
A statement without any support, typical smoke screen which means you have no answer at all.
Incorrect. I have evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinosauropteryx

The feathers on this dinosaur are unlike either down feathers or flight feathers, so my point is both valid and correct. You've utterly failed to disprove evolution.
Juan

United States

#5 Jan 19, 2014
HillStart wrote:
<quoted text>
Incorrect. I have evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinosauropteryx
The feathers on this dinosaur are unlike either down feathers or flight feathers, so my point is both valid and correct. You've utterly failed to disprove evolution.
No you have utterly failed to PROVE evolution. All your types ever say is your right without proof.

I know that most of you never took a math course but the answer isn't enough in math tests. You must show the proof. Unlike mathematics evolutionists never shows the proof and that's the point all along.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#6 Jan 19, 2014
Juan wrote:
<quoted text>
No you have utterly failed to PROVE evolution. All your types ever say is your right without proof.
I know that most of you never took a math course but the answer isn't enough in math tests. You must show the proof. Unlike mathematics evolutionists never shows the proof and that's the point all along.
Wrong, science is not math. Nothing is ever proven in science. Instead science works by developing theories that are tested. The theory of evolution has been tested for over 150 years and has yet to fail a major test. Meanwhile the claims of creationists can be shown to be wrong by high school students.

You need to lean how science is done. Anyone who complains that "you have utterly failed to PROVE evolution" has only shown that he is completely illiterate when it comes to science.
HillStart

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#7 Jan 19, 2014
Juan wrote:
<quoted text>
No you have utterly failed to PROVE evolution. All your types ever say is your right without proof.
I know that most of you never took a math course but the answer isn't enough in math tests. You must show the proof. Unlike mathematics evolutionists never shows the proof and that's the point all along.
As you are clearly an expert in all things mathematical, please explain what hypothesis testing is and why it was developed. I'm particularly interested to hear you explain what a significance level is, and why it was necessary to develop such a concept if it was possible to just "show the proof".

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#8 Jan 19, 2014
DarwinPaul wrote:
<quoted text>
Invalid!
A statement without any support, typical smoke screen which means you have no answer at all.

This is incorrect. The fossil history of feathers shows they were not originally for flight. The evidence is the fossil record of feathers which are considered one of the (many) supports for evolution.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#9 Jan 19, 2014
Juan wrote:
<quoted text>
No you have utterly failed to PROVE evolution. All your types ever say is your right without proof.
I know that most of you never took a math course but the answer isn't enough in math tests. You must show the proof. Unlike mathematics evolutionists never shows the proof and that's the point all along.

You clearly don't understand science and probably not math either. Science is based on 'support' or 'evidence', which is to say data that is in line with the theory. There is no proof in science.

And I have taken graduate level math classes.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#10 Jan 20, 2014
DarwinPaul wrote:
<quoted text>
Invalid!
A statement without any support, typical smoke screen which means you have no answer at all.
Which is why your first post is BS.(shrug)

By the way, I see you're still letting slip that you reject biology because Jews are magic.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#11 Jan 20, 2014
Juan wrote:
<quoted text>
No you have utterly failed to PROVE evolution. All your types ever say is your right without proof.
Actually you don't know what proof is. You don't even know what evidence is. You don't even know what science is.

We can present evidence which you fundies can't refute. And have done for years. Problem with you guys is you don't even know the basics.
Juan wrote:
<quoted text>I know that most of you never took a math course
That may surprise people like DS and Polymath who sometimes post here, both of which have PhD's in math. Pretty sure most of us at least passed math in school though.
Juan wrote:
but the answer isn't enough in math tests.
That's nice that you think so but math is not biology and biology is not math. What's really necessary in biology is knowledge of biology.
Juan wrote:
You must show the proof. Unlike mathematics evolutionists never shows the proof and that's the point all along.
No, "proof" is ONLY for math. Science deals with EVIDENCE. And evolutionary biologists show tons of evidence all the time. We do on here too, which never gets addressed. But since you're incapable of finding the evidence online using this magnificent contraption in front of you called A COMPUTER, then that means you're either lying or EXTREMELY uneducated on the subject. So while we can meet your demands with but a click of the button, why should we bother? It's not as if you'd accept it anyway no matter what. You know it. We know it. And the man in the sky you reject creation for knows it.

So seriously. Why should we bother?(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#12 Jan 20, 2014
DarwinPaul wrote:
An evolutionist could talk about fur mutating into down feathers and not sound totally stupid. But flight feathers are so totally different from down feathers that you'd need TWO mutations to get to them i.e. one mutation to get from fur to down feathers and then another to get from down feathers to flight feathers.
Wow.

Funny, how a creationist could talk about this and would TOTALLY sound totally stupid.

I wonder if DP knows he was born with probably nearly 200 mutations himself.

With that many he must look like Greedo.

FSTDT anyone?
DarwinPaul

Houston, TX

#13 Jan 20, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow.

FSTDT anyone?
BTW, you weren't born gay. That's just an excuse, so just stop it.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#14 Jan 20, 2014
DarwinPaul wrote:
<quoted text>
BTW, you weren't born gay. That's just an excuse, so just stop it.
I see you have pretty much exhausted the full range your intellectual ability and are running with anger, hatred and name calling.

Who woulda guessed.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#15 Jan 20, 2014
DarwinPaul wrote:
Of course the undeveloped minds, the sociopath cons and liars (Atheists) on this forum will divert and name call.
Anybody else see the irony here?

And, if I were you, I'd hold off on calling any else an "undeveloped mind" until you at least understand (and can verbalize) how science actually works. LOL

We know you're a bored teenage home-schooler with zero social skills. You aren't fooling anyone.
DarwinPaul

Houston, TX

#16 Jan 20, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I see you have pretty much exhausted the full range your intellectual ability and are running with anger, hatred and name calling.
Who woulda guessed.
Touchy! and projecting....again
DarwinPaul

Houston, TX

#17 Jan 20, 2014
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
Anybody else see the irony here?
And, if I were you, I'd hold off on calling any else an "undeveloped mind" until you at least understand (and can verbalize) how science actually works. LOL
We know you're a bored teenage home-schooler with zero social skills. You aren't fooling anyone.
What intellectual tour de force,/sarca font off

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#18 Jan 20, 2014
A nice article on feather evolution:

http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/feather_evol...

Read it and then we can discuss it.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#19 Jan 21, 2014
DarwinPaul wrote:
<quoted text>
BTW, you weren't born gay. That's just an excuse, so just stop it.

sort of true. Recent researcch show gene activitation (via mainly hormone exposure), more so than the genes themselves, determine romantic/sexual attraction.

There is no means to reverse this process at least at this time.

Learn to deal with people being different from (or simillar to) you.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#20 Jan 21, 2014
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
Anybody else see the irony here?
And, if I were you, I'd hold off on calling any else an "undeveloped mind" until you at least understand (and can verbalize) how science actually works. LOL
We know you're a bored teenage home-schooler with zero social skills. You aren't fooling anyone.

My assessment as well.

Great minds think alike. I don't know what our excuse is.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 3 min SATAN 222,189
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr replaytime 78,567
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! 4 hr Endofdays 790
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 6 hr Eagle 12 - 1,362
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 14 hr Science 162,986
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) Wed Science 32,431
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) Aug 5 yehoshooah adam 4,381
More from around the web