Early birds had four wings, not two: ...

Early birds had four wings, not two: study

There are 8 comments on the com.lb story from Mar 14, 2013, titled Early birds had four wings, not two: study. In it, com.lb reports that:

WASHINGTON: Some primitive birds boasted four wings, before evolution led them to ditch their hind feathers in favor of webbed or scaly feet, scientists in China said on Thursday.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at com.lb.

bgrnathan

Boyertown, PA

#1 Mar 15, 2013
ONLY LIMITED EVOLUTION POSSIBLE IN NATURE

All real evolution in nature is within limits. The genes already exist for micro-evolution (variations within a biological kind such as varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.), but not for macro-evolution (variations across biological kinds such as from sea sponge to human). The unthinking environment has no ability to design or program entirely new genes. Only variations of already existing genes and traits are possible. A dog will always be a dog no matter how many varieties come into being.

Evolutionists hope and assume that, over millions of years, random mutations (accidental changes) in the genetic code caused by radiation from the environment will produce entirely new genes for entirely new traits in species so that macro-evolution occurs. It’s much like hoping that, if given enough time, randomly changing the sequence of letters in a cook book will turn the book into a romance novel, or a book on astronomy!

Another problem for macro-evolution is the issue of survival of the fittest. How can a partially evolved species be fit for survival? A partially evolved trait or organ that is not complete and fully functioning from the start will be a liability to a species, not a survival asset. Plants and animals in the process of macro-evolution would be unfit for survival.

Imagine an evolving fish having part fins and part feet, with the fins evolving into feet. Where’s the survival advantage? It can't use either fins or feet efficiently. These fish exist only on automobile bumper stickers!

In fact, how could species have survived at all while their vital organs were supposedly evolving? Survival of the fittest (aka natural selection) may explain how species survive, due to minor variations and adaptations to the environment, but not how they originated. Natural selection merely “selects” from biological variations that are possible. It’s not a creative force.

Genetic and biological similarities between species are no proof of common ancestry. Such similarities are better and more logically explained due to a common Genetic Engineer or Designer (yes, God) who designed similar functions for similar purposes in various species. Genetic information, like other forms of information, cannot arise by chance, so it's more rational to believe that DNA or genetic similarities between species are due to intelligent design.

What about "Junk" DNA? The latest science shows that "Junk DNA" isn't junk after all! It's we who were ignorant of how useful these segments of DNA really are. Recent scientific research published in scientific journals such as Nature and RNA has revealed that the "non-coding" segments of DNA are essential in regulating gene expression (i.e. how, when, and where genes are expressed in the body).

All the fossils that have been used to support human evolution have ultimately been found to be either hoaxes, non-human, or human, but not human and non-human.

All species in the fossil record and living are complete, fully-formed, and fully functional. There's no macro-evolution in nature.

Visit my newest Internet sites, THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION and WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS (2nd Edition)

Sincerely,
Babu G. Ranganathan
(B.A. Bible/Biology)

Author of the popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS

*I have given successful lectures (with question and answer period afterwards) defending creation before evolutionist science faculty and students at various colleges and universities. I've been privileged to be recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis "Who's Who in The East" for my writings on religion and science.
GAYtrollRex

Honolulu, HI

#2 Mar 15, 2013
I didn't read any of those words, since you put many paragraphs. That's too long for me. Nobodys gonna read your post, it's too long for'em.

“'SPOT' The Diplodocus”

Since: Feb 12

Cheshire UK

#3 Mar 16, 2013
bgrnathan wrote:
ONLY LIMITED EVOLUTION POSSIBLE IN NATURE
All real evolution in nature is within limits. The genes already exist for micro-evolution (variations within a biological kind such as varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.), but not for macro-evolution (variations across biological kinds such as from sea sponge to human). The unthinking environment has no ability to design or program entirely new genes. Only variations of already existing genes and traits are possible. A dog will always be a dog no matter how many varieties come into being.
Evolutionists hope and assume that, over millions of years, random mutations (accidental changes) in the genetic code caused by radiation from the environment will produce entirely new genes for entirely new traits in species so that macro-evolution occurs. It’s much like hoping that, if given enough time, randomly changing the sequence of letters in a cook book will turn the book into a romance novel, or a book on astronomy!
Another problem for macro-evolution is the issue of survival of the fittest. How can a partially evolved species be fit for survival? A partially evolved trait or organ that is not complete and fully functioning from the start will be a liability to a species, not a survival asset. Plants and animals in the process of macro-evolution would be unfit for survival.
Imagine an evolving fish having part fins and part feet, with the fins evolving into feet. Where’s the survival advantage? It can't use either fins or feet efficiently. These fish exist only on automobile bumper stickers!
In fact, how could species have survived at all while their vital organs were supposedly evolving? Survival of the fittest (aka natural selection) may explain how species survive, due to minor variations and adaptations to the environment, but not how they originated. Natural selection merely “selects” from biological variations that are possible. It’s not a creative force.
Genetic and biological similarities between species are no proof of common ancestry. Such similarities are better and more logically explained due to a common Genetic Engineer or Designer (yes, God) who designed similar functions for similar purposes in various species. Genetic information, like other forms of information, cannot arise by chance, so it's more rational to believe that DNA or genetic similarities between species are due to intelligent design.
What about "Junk" DNA? The latest science shows that "Junk DNA" isn't junk after all! It's we who were ignorant of how useful these segments of DNA really are. Recent scientific research published in scientific journals such as Nature and RNA has revealed that the "non-coding" segments of DNA are essential in regulating gene expression (i.e. how, when, and where genes are expressed in the body).
All the fossils that have been used to support human evolution have ultimately been found to be either hoaxes, non-human, or human, but not human and non-human.
All species in the fossil record and living are complete, fully-formed, and fully functional. There's no macro-evolution in nature.
Visit my newest Internet sites, THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION and WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS (2nd Edition)
Sincerely,
Babu G. Ranganathan
(B.A. Bible/Biology)
Author of the popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS
*I have given successful lectures (with question and answer period afterwards) defending creation before evolutionist science faculty and students at various colleges and universities. I've been privileged to be recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis "Who's Who in The East" for my writings on religion and science.
REXBY, Perleese come back, all is forgiven. This plonker is even more of an idiot!

“'SPOT' The Diplodocus”

Since: Feb 12

Cheshire UK

#4 Mar 16, 2013
And BTW,
Evolution, micro or macro is an interactive continuum and is as old as the universe.
It is not simply "change" as this idiot pontificates.
It involves all things all the time.
Most evolutional processes don't work, but a minority does...
Hence the universe today....

...and God?
Is a figment of the imagination of the ignorant and illogical.
An Idea that clouds intelligent thinking and stifles the reality of existence.
Lord Vader Garfield

Honolulu, HI

#5 Mar 16, 2013
God is NOT real, eh?

“'SPOT' The Diplodocus”

Since: Feb 12

Cheshire UK

#6 Mar 17, 2013
Out of all the conscious things that have ever existed.... Only, in the mind of man.
brgnathan lrn2read

Mesquite, NV

#7 Mar 17, 2013
bgrnathan, lrn2read
Lord Vader Garfield

Honolulu, HI

#8 Mar 17, 2013
I swear you to piss off, you c*nt!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Dinosaur Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Dilphosaurus vs 1 utahraptor 8 hr Super suchlmimus 1
Lion vs tiger (Oct '11) Tue Tyrannosauridae 231
Tyrannosaurus Rex vs. Tarbosaurus Bataar (Jan '08) Jul 26 Hwoodatty 206
I am Fartosaurus Rex! Hear me ... Jul 24 Fartosaurus Rex 1
Spinosaurus would easily beat T rex in a fight (Jun '14) Jul 24 Prehistory 221
Did T rex have a poisonous bite? (Nov '09) Jul 23 tyrannosauresstudy 59
Poll Worldest strongest man vs African leopard/Deino... (Sep '10) Jul 23 Prehistory 105
More from around the web