A flying squirrel is still a squirrel. A flying lemur is still a lemur. And there is no clear evidence that these so-called "flying" forms evolved from "non-flying" squirrels and "non-flying" lemurs.
My main point here is, of course, that a bat has pretty sophisticated flapping wings--not mere gliding structures. For that matter, the terms "flying squirrel" and "flying lemur" are misnomers (at least for the purposes of your argument). They cannot fly in the sense we associate with birds or bats or dragonflies. Furthermore, squirrels and lemurs that can glide are not in the process of evolving into species that can truly fly anymore than Olympic ski jumpers are evolving into human eagles.
In this sense, gliding is a "non-starter."
Anyway, you ought to go back and look at my argument more carefully. It is correct. (It is also very simple, which makes it devastatingly elegant [ha!])
Several rather thoughtless evolutionists have carelessly theorized that bats evolved from rats, but it doesn't work. The really serious problem is seen in the early going, when the poor rat's deformity will not even facilitate gliding, much less bat-like flight. And, of course, the deformed rat cannot run, either.
Please notice that this is correct, hb.
So, even if I were to agree that gliding is surely a "starter," I would have to point out that the rat will never reach the stage of being able to glide through the air. Invoking aeons of time and zillions of generation doesn't help at all. The evolutionist's zeal to offer anti-creationist explanations makes him sloppy to the point of scientific dishonesty. It is very self-deceiving. the poor fellow cannot believe that the creationist's objections to evolutionary theory are scientifically sound. But they are scientifically sound. (They just aren't fashionable in our enlightened age [ha, again!].)
In short, there really are peculiar thermodynamic barriers between species. Your theory invokes itself past these by strangely ignoring them.
I would urge you to think again about the problem at the level I presented in my earlier post--not just go waving your hands (flapping your non-wings?) to invoke illustrations that do not, indeed, cannot support your case.
(Ah, but that is precisely what evolutionists do. They wave their hands a lot [and yell]. Evolution is just plain bad science. It is more religion than science.)
Regards,
the_doc
2000+ Ping for later
I'd like to hear more about "thermodynamic barriers between species" and why "evolution is just plain bad science" or "it is more religion than science".
It's so entertaining to read such nonsense.
2000+ Ping for later (second try)
"A flying squirrel is still a squirrel. A flying lemur is still a lemur. And there is no clear evidence that these so-called "flying" forms evolved from "non-flying" squirrels and "non-flying" lemurs.
Whether or not the squirrel is still a squirrel and the lemur (which is not a true lemur) is still a lemur is irrelevant to the question you asked, which was specific to the change in function of a given feature, independent of the organism that exhibits the feature. The claim you made was that there exists a point between the initial and the end function of a feature undergoing change where the costs of carrying the new function is enough to prevent the organism from surviving long enough to pass on the new function. There are enough extant examples of organisms which, whether actively undergoing change or not, have features whose function is intermediate between the normal function of those same features on other organisms to clearly show the cost/benefit ratio of that particular change.
"My main point here is, of course, that a bat has pretty sophisticated flapping wings--not mere gliding structures. For that matter, the terms "flying squirrel" and "flying lemur" are misnomers (at least for the purposes of your argument). They cannot fly in the sense we associate with birds or bats or dragonflies.
This is true. However the gliding organisms are good examples of the cost/benefit ratio that needs to be examined during any change in the function of a feature. Most intermediate features show multi-functionality. It must be stated that new functions may affect the morphology of a species as much as changed morphology affects the function of a feature.
If we examine the colugo we see an organism that is poorly adapted to purely arboreal locomotion but is limited to gliding rather than flying. It is farther along in the transition (Again, it is not necessary to assert that it will ever become a flying organism as we are only concerned with the cost/benefit ratio between the two states) between purely ground based to purely air based than the flying squirrel so is experiencing a higher cost in its arboreal life than does the flying squirrel. However the cost/benefit ratio in the changes to the colugo's adaptation is still biased toward the benefit side, as is born out by observation.
If you want to claim that there exists a point where the c/b ratio leans towards the cost side to such an extent that it either terminates the change - prevents the changed function from being passed on to succeeding generations -, or the species suffers extinction you need to identify those conditions.
" Furthermore, squirrels and lemurs that can glide are not in the process of evolving into species that can truly fly anymore than Olympic ski jumpers are evolving into human eagles.
This assertion has no value in the debate, it is simply an opinion and an appeal to emotion.
Because evolution is reliant on incremental stepwise changes over humanly significant time periods it is highly unlikely that we would witness the change between one function and another in a given feature of a given species. What we can expect is to see are features with functions that appear to be intermediate between the functions exhibited by other species. This is indeed what we find.
"In this sense, gliding is a "non-starter."
Gliding is an example of the cost/benefit ratio exhibited by any organism who has undergone the change from ground to air. It shows quite clearly that the change in function does not lead inexorably to the demise of the organism or the function.
"Anyway, you ought to go back and look at my argument more carefully. It is correct. (It is also very simple, which makes it devastatingly elegant [ha!])
Your argument is that there exists a point in the change of function and morphology of a feature where the organism inevitably suffers a higher cost than benefit; although you called it thermodynamics.
"Several rather thoughtless evolutionists have carelessly theorized that bats evolved from rats, but it doesn't work. The really serious problem is seen in the early going, when the poor rat's deformity will not even facilitate gliding, much less bat-like flight. And, of course, the deformed rat cannot run, either.
That 'deformity' as you call it would be a flap of skin that confers the ability to glide. There would not need to be some monstrous deformity to go from the bat ancestor to the bat, all intermediate steps, whether they occurred independently or concurrently, can be achieved without biasing the c/b ratio significantly in the direction of cost.
"Please notice that this is correct, hb.
Sorry.
"So, even if I were to agree that gliding is surely a "starter," I would have to point out that the rat will never reach the stage of being able to glide through the air.
Assertion, appeal to emotion.
"Invoking aeons of time and zillions of generation doesn't help at all. The evolutionist's zeal to offer anti-creationist explanations makes him sloppy to the point of scientific dishonesty. It is very self-deceiving. the poor fellow cannot believe that the creationist's objections to evolutionary theory are scientifically sound. But they are scientifically sound. (They just aren't fashionable in our enlightened age [ha, again!].)
It appears you have stopped making arguments.
'Creation Scientists' can and have been shown to ignore past and current science and the scientific method. Many not only ignore the current laws of physics but twist them beyond recognition.
"In short, there really are peculiar thermodynamic barriers between species. Your theory invokes itself past these by strangely ignoring them.
If you are so sure that there are thermodynamic barriers to evolution, present them.
"I would urge you to think again about the problem at the level I presented in my earlier post--not just go waving your hands (flapping your non-wings?) to invoke illustrations that do not, indeed, cannot support your case.
I have yet to see you be specific enough to have presented a problem. Please be more specific.
"(Ah, but that is precisely what evolutionists do. They wave their hands a lot [and yell]. Evolution is just plain bad science. It is more religion than science.)
Ad hominem is not an argument. What differentiates a religion from a science and how does creation science follow the scientific methodology and how does the study of evolution not follow the methodology?