Top Ten Scientific Facts : Evolution is False and Impossible.

page: 12
95
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 03:25 AM
link   
Wow talk about getting ripped to shreds lol.


But I suppose we all are stuck in our mindsets and nothing will change that.


Some believe there is a God living in the sky and others might believe that a ufo is flying behind a comet and its going to take them away they only need to commit suicide whilst others might think its a good idea to strap explosive to their chest even though another might find causing any suffering to be immoral.




posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
Bone density. So pterdactyl's had fragile bones?

Guys, you're moving the bar all over yonder. That horizon is infinitely receeding!

On the one hand, the issue can be explained by appealing to "only what's needed", on the other hand, the issue can be explained by appealing to randomness or high order or high disorder or, whatever the bar needs to be in order to keep that baby in the corral!


Most birds, and flying critters have very fragile bones. The denser the bone the heavier and stronger it is. The heavier it is, the harder it is to fly, and the more energy it takes. If you have dense bones in a bird they'd have to eat constantly to have enough evergy to fly, if they were even light enough to get off the ground.



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 03:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Originally posted by undo
Bone density. So pterdactyl's had fragile bones?

Guys, you're moving the bar all over yonder. That horizon is infinitely receeding!

On the one hand, the issue can be explained by appealing to "only what's needed", on the other hand, the issue can be explained by appealing to randomness or high order or high disorder or, whatever the bar needs to be in order to keep that baby in the corral!


Most birds, and flying critters have very fragile bones. The denser the bone the heavier and stronger it is. The heavier it is, the harder it is to fly, and the more energy it takes. If you have dense bones in a bird they'd have to eat constantly to have enough evergy to fly, if they were even light enough to get off the ground.


So that explains how falcons bash their prey were their breastbones? Cause they are fragile and light?
"Peregrines can attain speeds of over 200 mph when diving (called “stooping”) on their prey."



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 03:56 AM
link   
Just because a bone can withstand wind resistance makes it really strong?
You're confusing density with strength though. For their size bones in birds are quite strong. But their density is low, to make them light enough for a bird to fly. A human with the same density wouldn't be able to move, because everytime they stepped their legs would probably break, or everytime they hit their arm against something it would break. But because you're talking a small light bird, they're quite strong FOR THE SIZE.

Oh, and falcons don't "bash their prey with their breastbones", they hit them with their talons when they stoop.


Pursuit (Attack). Several modes recognizable: stoop, ringing up, direct pursuit, contour-hugging, shepherding, running or hopping, and flapping on ground (see also Behavior: locomotion, below). Stoop is well-known mode: dive from above quarry, varying from 1,000 m long and from 90° angle to horizontal to



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 04:23 AM
link   
Scroll down to the info on peregrine falcons:




THINGS WITH WINGS PEREGRINE FALCON

How is this falcon like a football player?
The peregrine falcon has black markings
under its eyes, like many football players put on. This helps absorb sunlight below the
eyes to cut down on the glare. It helps them see to assist with their hunting.
Like all living things, the peregrine falcon needs to get energy to survive. Put these actions in the
order that they occur so a peregrine can survive. Put a 1 to show the first thing.
peregrine pulls the prey apart
prey drops toward the ground
special “tooth” or notch in peregrine’s beak is used to bite and sever spinal cord at the
neck (prey is killed quickly)
hits prey with its breastbone
peregrine swallows its prey
peregrine grabs prey with its talons (curved claws) powered by strong feet
About how fast can the peregrine fly in a dive?
200 miles an hour!!


So essentially the peregrine falcon hits its prey with its breastbone, while travelling at 200 mph. So bones don't have to be dense to take impact. Secondly, if the wing bones are strong and dense enough, they could withstand the weight of a human body, doncha think?

(mod edit: broken link fix)


[edit on 27-3-2006 by Riwka]



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 04:36 AM
link   
If bones aren't light, birds don't fly. it's that simple. Some bones are heavier and stronger than others, but ALL their bones are designed to be as light as possible.


There is a weight limit for a flapping bird. The heavier the animal, the bigger its wings need to be. The bigger the wings, the more muscle is needed to move them. The biggest flying bird today is called the Great Bustard. They weigh as much as 32 pounds and are 4 feet long.

The best way to fly is to be light. So most birds are small. Birds have feathers that are very light weight. The bones that birds have are also made for lightness. Birds have less bones than most animals. The bones they have are hard but thin. The biggest bones in flying birds are the breast bone and the shoulder bones.

Some birds have bones weighing less than their feathers. The powerful flying birds have medium weight skeletons. Birds that don't fly have the heaviest skeleton. In birds many bones are fused together. In this way not as many muscles are needed. The biggest muscles a bird has are its flight muscles. These are very strong because they have to raise the entire body into the air.

sln.fi.edu...


Birds have a lot of adaptations for flight. Their bones are hollow and light, but strong, They have light feathers which catch the air. They can fold up their wings when they are not in use. Their lungs are extra efficient at extracting oxygen from the air (we huff and puff when running, and flying is much harder!). They eat huge amounts of high-energy food, relative to their body weight.

van.hep.uiuc.edu...


Many birds have hollow bones to reduce their weight. (Check this site for more information on the adaptations of the skeletons of birds.) These special bones are very strong though, to cope with the forces necessary for flight. (Birds that do not fly but dive need the weight of solid bones. Penguins are in this category.) Instead of relatively heavy teeth, birds have light jaws and beaks. The gizzard, present in many birds and used for digestion, is in the middle of the body, and helps keep the bird steady when flying.

Even the reproductive organs are specialized to reduce size. A female bird has only one ovary which is normally very small. During breeding season, this one ovary will increase up to 1,500 times in size. She will become more reliant on the male to bring her food during this time when her flying is impaired.

An interesting link is from the Cincinnati Zoo where they have an exhibit showing children their shape and weight if they were a bird! To achieve and maintain flight, a bird has to have tremendous muscles. Over 30 percent of a hummingbird's weight is in its flight muscles. In fact, the flapping motion is one of the most strenuous activities in the entire animal kingdom. The heavier the bird, the more difficult is flight. The top weight range of flying birds is about 20 - 30 pounds. Examples that come to mind of this upper limit are mute swans, California condors, and some pelicans.

birding.about.com...

If the wing bones were dense enough they would be useless for a human, because we couldn't even get off the ground with them. So we'd end up losing them.

[edit on 3/27/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Hi Rren,

Hope your well


Very well thanks, you?



I'd heard of such mutations before. Isn't it more of a case that there are predictable mutations under certain circumstances at certian parts of the genome? So the genome is biased towards certain mutations due to intense selection pressures?


The terms, as I understand them, "directed" and "random" mutations are a bit ambiguous... guess the same can be said for the terms "intelligent" and "design" lol. This often comes up in papers and debates that I've read and wanted to try and understand it better... that page has been helpful but I wouldn't say i completely "get it" yet. Of course, from what I read, evolutionary biologists are still unsure as to what it all means and what implications it may have on Darwinian evolution...

The arguments, again as I understand them, is that NDT wouldn't predict such "directed" mutations where an ID hypothesis would. Not claiming that's true on either point, but it's what I'm getting out of it... just another argument that's mostly over my head... I do know it's a big issue/problem for an NDT evolutionary model (many non-IDers talk about it) but I'm not sure what, if anything, that means for the design paradigm. I guess you could say that it shows evolution is as much a directed mechanism than it is driven by random chance/circumstance... IOW the ability of an organism to adapt/evolve is a built-in ability more so than a product of beneficial mutations of the genome. Of course that's my (mostly) uninformed conclusion and i'm still to 'green' to argue anything to that effect. That's why I just posted the link without comment... still trying to grasp the relevant issues. Thanks for your link BTW, I've got it in my folder and will give it a proper read when I have some more time.

Mattison0922 has discussed this around here before... I'll send him a u2u after i post this and see if he wants to post something here. Your a nueroscientist(PhD) while i'm a contractor(high-school diploma) so I doubt I could debate or discuss this to your, or anyone's, satisfaction.

Think mattison has all but given up on the O&C forum here, but I know he enjoys discussing this with his peers and you certainly qualify as that... only some much "God did it" and "You ignorant religous zealot" type stuff you can hear before you just give up out of frustration. Me i'm just too dumb to know better.


Talk to you soon,
-Rren



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Glad to hear your well. Doing good here


Don't worry about the layman issue, I'm trying to muddle through myself when it comes to most of these genetics/biology issues.

One interpretation of these 'non-random' mutations I've read is that the mutations are still in essence random, but of course natural selection isn't - it's a bit like spinning a coin biased to heads. Seems to skirt the issue though. Maybe Mattison does have a better idea, lol.

However, it is true that certain mutations, under certain conditions, at particular areas of the genome, appear non-random. So it may well be an issue. Of course, NDT is just one theory and not every biologist is a fan of it.



[edit on 27-3-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 02:42 PM
link   
How many of us have eaten a chicken? HUH?

Have you ever LOOKED at the breastbone of the chicken you're munching on?

HMMMM?

It's a long Y-shaped bone, with the inboard inch-long EDGE-surface of the Y, made of tough cartilege.

It can "take" a lot of pounding. Even a chicken.

Never mind, a falcon coming in a 200 mph.

Birds are well designed for the functions they attain to.

To the designer goes the credit for their persistent survival.

Chai



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 02:47 PM
link   


Have you ever LOOKED at the breastbone of the chicken you're munching on?

Umm, sorry to break the news to you, but domestic chickens have lost the ability to fly.



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 02:52 PM
link   
It's very easy to get caught up in some minor little details like whether or not a particular little footbone is explainable using this or that theory.

And I think it's really pointless to argue about a theory when neither "side" can 1) agree about the parameters of testing the theory, or 2) agree on what the theory is really hoping to explore.

A "theory" is neither true nor false. So why even argue about it.
As for what is "impossible," that's what the testing is all about.
At least evolution as a theory is able to come up with some hypotheses that can be scientifically tested.
What has "intelligent design" come up with as far as testable hypotheses go? Nuthin.



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by SportyMB



Have you ever LOOKED at the breastbone of the chicken you're munching on?

Umm, sorry to break the news to you, but domestic chickens have lost the ability to fly.


You're convincing me that this is not a friendly place.

Bird morphology is quite consistent, whether a bird actually flies or not.

So, what's your real point ... that you can be clever?

If Evolution were true all chickens would try to fly; all humans would try to do outcome-positive behaviors; all predators would exhaust their prey.

But none of these states has been achieved. The design does not include the outcome, because there is "slack" in the system : free will change.

But, you think what you want.

Chaiyah



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by chaiyah99
You're convincing me that this is not a friendly place.

The O & C forum at ATS isn't a friendly place.... despite the best efforts of some members... Rren, melatonin,



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 05:49 AM
link   
Sorry if this seems a little out of place but it seems those trying to disprove evolution on animals that there enviroment now no longer suits them, like the Zebra... but you seems to forget that they are a pack oriented highly maturnal creature, and that MOST predatory animals see in black and white for a better view of moving targets... but please also forget that even we with our "superior abilitys" have a problem in the case of them moving in a close net herd telling where one animal ends and another begins, its the excact same as striped fish that swim in schools to confuse their predators... it may no longer suit them now that predators have evolved themselves to better catch their prey, but dont forget even if we cant see it happening, all things living around us, including us are still changing and evolving, along with the fact that in alot of animals, including us, they have evolved to ways of being able to properly migrate, we've found many bacteria that produce the mineral Magnitite, weve also found out that we ourselves do so in a very low amount, then that crows can infact see the ionisation effects of the earths magnetic field, its beyond me with the knowledge of this that there definitaly isnt a group "consioucness" driving torwards packs, flocks, prides, whatever to slowly change torwards a better condition for the whole of the species. I can somewhat agree with the ideas behind Intelligent Design, but Creationism to me is a huge load. as I point back to a past post by me on page 10...



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 06:35 AM
link   
good post, however, after reading it, just about everything you said, can, and has been proven wrong. i'll post more details as to why once i get home later, i dont' have time now, but first..

The theory about thermodynamics does not apply to evolution. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is a nice law yes, but it can't be applied to every thing possible. The problem is, when organisms are evoloving, the body is consantly having work done on it in order to evolve. It doesn't just remain innactive while all it's energy disapates.

An organism is constantly taking in more energy, food etc, and producing work with it. With work, it's possible to organize things into a higher structure. I guess building houses is impossible too right? Because the pile of wood is becomming more structured and goes against the 2nd law lol.

there's more to it, sorry no time right now



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by SportyMB


Umm, sorry to break the news to you, but domestic chickens have lost the ability to fly.



Wow... well someone better tell the chickens! I had chickens on my farm, they can still fly. (Not long flights, but they can fly none the less.) I have seen them fly 20 to 30 feet across and up into trees as high as 10 to 12 feet.

Now domesticated birds cannot fly as well as their wild counter parts, but this is because we breed them to be heavy in the breast area.

Think of a person that is a pole vaulter and then make them 350 to 450 pounds. Yeah they could still possibly vault, but they are not going to get very high.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 08:09 AM
link   
Good links posted by Zaphod58
bna.birds.cornell.edu
sln.fi.edu
van.hep.uiuc.edu


birding.about.com
An interesting link is from the Cincinnati Zoo where they have an exhibit showing children their shape and weight if they were a bird! To achieve and maintain flight, a bird has to have tremendous muscles. Over 30 percent of a hummingbird's weight is in its flight muscles. In fact, the flapping motion is one of the most strenuous activities in the entire animal kingdom. The heavier the bird, the more difficult is flight. The top weight range of flying birds is about 20 - 30 pounds. Examples that come to mind of this upper limit are mute swans, California condors, and some pelicans.



Originally posted by chaiyah99
You're convincing me that this is not a friendly place.

(joking)



Wow... well someone better tell the chickens! I had chickens on my farm, they can still fly. (Not long flights, but they can fly none the less.) I have seen them fly 20 to 30 feet across and up into trees as high as 10 to 12 feet.

There's a difference between flying and a few wing assisted leaps into a tree.



www.urbanext.uiuc.edu...
Domestic chickens have essentially lost the ability to fly. Heavy breeds used for meat production cannot do more than flap their wings and jump to a little higher level or move more rapidly along the ground. The lighter-bodied birds can fly short distances, and some can fly over relatively high fences. The feet and shank portions of the legs have scales.

petcaretips.net...



[edit on 28/3/2006 by SportyMB]

[edit on 28/3/2006 by SportyMB]



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 01:02 AM
link   
what, exactly, is the problem with accepting the idea of intelligently CREATED evoloutionarily DRIVEN live? it seems a plausible enough theory to me.

and besides that fact, if god were an all knowing being, would he only simply have to give things a simple 'nudge' to start everything off? the correct "push" in the right direction would eventually turn out in a predetermined manner, no?



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 01:57 AM
link   
I know this thread is ancient but it showed up on the front page so I went looking and digging and just want to say I found in under a minute that all of ed's claims about granite are false.

Thats right, he (ed singer) knowingly spread more ignorance here. Science has at least four explanations for the formation of granite, as there is so much of it, and so many varieties.

If there was "Intelligent Design", then why did this "god" make so many of his followers so foolish and give them giant gaping mouths to spread their ignorance to others? He must have been a lord of lies, lord of this world, you know who I mean.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 06:51 AM
link   
I'm relatively new to the boards here so I read this thread with a chuckle.

What I don't see here are some simple questions, so I'll ask.

For all the creationists out there - your books on God - who wrote them?

Can you prove to me, without any shadow of a doubt, that it was "God"?

No? Then how can you even begin to question scientific theories when the corner stone of your religion is based on an assumption that something may have happened sometime?

To those who claim evolution can't be so because we've not "heard from anyone else", please think about the following;

In an infinitely large universe, the gaps between habitable planets could be so close to infinite that we would never be able to comprehend the difference. You could have one habitable planet per galaxy and yet the universe could be as teeming with life as we would see bacteria in a drop of water - why? because its infinite. Your argument doesn't stack up.

To refute Darwinism on the basis of assumptions that you cannot prove is kind of ludicrous.





new topics

top topics



 
95
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join