Great Hoaxes of Science. Spoiler Alert: Most are about Evolution and/or early man

[Seymour Flops]

Do you really think they took a crayon and drew some feathers where there weren't any? Or did they highlight was was already there but too faint to be easily seen?

I think the artists were probably honestly trying to highlight what is already there, to make it easier for us to see. It appears to be airbrush, not crayon of course.

Which is fine, if we are willing to accept what they show us without question. But the whole point of showing a photograph is supposed to be so we can see with our own eyes. If there were no highlighting, we would see (or not see) that what they claim to be feathers are feathers. When they airbrush in the feathers, that is them telling us feathers are there, not us seeing them for ourselves.

I don't say that every evolutionist is dishonest or that every fossil is a fraud. Not at all. But I do see a LOT of this kind of embellishment, that seems more suited to persuasion than explanation.

So this fossil was the prototype for a bird? Maybe so.

Prototypes are made by designers to test design and make corrections. A non-flying dino with wings and feathers as a prototype of a bird seems to fit that bill.

But if you are a follower of Darwin, what is the evolutionary value of the non-flying wings? They must have taken millions of mutations to produce, with each mutation adding significantly to survival/reproduction. What was the benefit of the non-flying proto-wings? Wouldn't the non-flying winged animals be hindered by dragging them around?

It seems highly unlikely that random processes would create a prototype and those random processes would then make adjustments based on the flaws discovered in testing the prototype.

That idea really anthropomorphizes random events.

 

[Hollie]

I think the artists were probably honestly trying to highlight what is already there, to make it easier for us to see. It appears to be airbrush, not crayon of course.

Which is fine, if we are willing to accept what they show us without question. But the whole point of showing a photograph is supposed to be so we can see with our own eyes. If there were no highlighting, we would see (or not see) that what they claim to be feathers are feathers. When they airbrush in the feathers, that is them telling us feathers are there, not us seeing them for ourselves.

I don't say that every evolutionist is dishonest or that every fossil is a fraud. Not at all. But I do see a LOT of this kind of embellishment, that seems more suited to persuasion than explanation.

Prototypes are made by designers to test design and make corrections. A non-flying dino with wings and feathers as a prototype of a bird seems to fit that bill.

But if you are a follower of Darwin, what is the evolutionary value of the non-flying wings? They must have taken millions of mutations to produce, with each mutation adding significantly to survival/reproduction. What was the benefit of the non-flying proto-wings? Wouldn't the non-flying winged animals be hindered by dragging them around?

It seems highly unlikely that random processes would create a prototype and those random processes would then make adjustments based on the flaws discovered in testing the prototype.

That idea really anthropomorphizes random events.

Nothing in your comments supports a conspiracy theory that anyone was using crayons or an airbrush to alter the fossil skeleton.

That you insist "random processes" is a driving force of biological evolution reinforces a lot of negative stereotypes about the falsehoods and ignorance spewed by the fundamentalist creation ministries.

 

[alang1216]

But if you are a follower of Darwin, what is the evolutionary value of the non-flying wings?

Just because you don't see an advantage doesn't mean there wasn't one. The way evolution works is that it takes structures that exist and changes them to fulfill a new role. Feathers offered plenty of advantages and only much later did they evolve into the shape that enables flight.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Just because you don't see an advantage doesn't mean there wasn't one. The way evolution works is that it takes structures that exist and changes them to fulfill a new role. Feathers offered plenty of advantages and only much later did they evolve into the shape that enables flight.

So, I ask again: what is the evolutionary advantage of the non-flying wings?

What advantage could feathers offer that fur could not?

Please state whether you are guessing or using evidence in your answer.

 

[alang1216]

So, I ask again: what is the evolutionary advantage of the non-flying wings?

Still a silly question since there are not such things as non-flying wings, there are only limbs not capable of flight. Do you have limbs not capable of flight? Are they useful?

What advantage could feathers offer that fur could not?

Animals that already have scales on their skin can easily evolve feathers, not hair. Feathers have many uses, way more than hair.

Please state whether you are guessing or using evidence in your answer.

Evidence.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Still a silly question since there are not such things as non-flying wings, there are only limbs not capable of flight. Do you have limbs not capable of flight? Are they useful?

Turkeys have wings.

 

[alang1216]

Turkeys have wings.

Turkeys have wings and can fly.

 

[Hollie]

Still a silly question since there are not such things as non-flying wings, there are only limbs not capable of flight. Do you have limbs not capable of flight? Are they useful?


Animals that already have scales on their skin can easily evolve feathers, not hair. Feathers have many uses, way more than hair.


Evidence.

It is predictable that creationers would refuse to accept transitional forms such as Archaeopteryx from scaled dinosaur to bird. To do so would further limit any need for the gods to have meddled with life on the planet. It would also confound the notion of a 6,000 year old planet.

Similarly, every creationer knows that the ocean could never have been a place where life evolved from. I mean, everybody knows snakes can talk but fish can’t walk or “breathe” out of water..

 

[Seymour Flops]

Turkeys have wings and can fly.

All turkeys with wings can fly?

 

[Hollie]

Gee whiz. A note of thanks to the gods that reason and rationality has prevailed and the public schools are safe from creationer nonsense being a part of the syllabus.

Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism | National Center for Science Education

1. In 1968, in Epperson v. Arkansas, the United States Supreme Court invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of evolution. The Court held the statute unconstitutional on the grounds that the First Amendment to the U.S.

ncse.ngo

 

[Hollie]

Thank the gods.

BRIA 22 2 b More Monkey Trials: The Evolution Debate Goes Back to Court - Online Lessons - Bill of Rights in Action - Teach Democracy

Teach Democracy FOUNDATION Bill of Rights in Action Spring 2006 (22:2) The Establishment of Religion BRIA 22:2 Home | The Scopes Trial | More Monkey Trials | Turkey: An Evolving Democracy in the Middle East More Monkey Trials: The Evolution Debate Goes Back to Court The Scopes trial of 1925 did...

www.crf-usa.org

Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District (2005)

U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones listened to the scientific testimony. He was not convinced that ID should be part of a scientific curriculum. ID, he concluded, is not science because it is based on the “supernatural.” True science is limited to the search “for natural causes to explain natural phenomena.” “Science,” he wrote, since the 16th century, “has been a discipline in which testability has been the measure of a scientific idea’s worth.” The way science works is to seek explanations of how nature works from what can be observed, tested, and verified. “While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science.”

 

[alang1216]

All turkeys with wings can fly?

I believe they could until we selectively bred them not to. Of course there are plenty of birds that can't fly. Penguins evolved to swim while ostriches evolved large size and fast running. Flying is energy intensive so many birds fly to islands with few predators and give up flying like the dodo.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I believe they could until we selectively bred them not to. Of course there are plenty of birds that can't fly. Penguins evolved to swim while ostriches evolved large size and fast running. Flying is energy intensive so many birds fly to islands with few predators and give up flying like the dodo.

Yes, and they all still have wings.

I ate a turkey wing, just last Thanksgiving.

Have you been on the tofu so long, you forgot that?

 

[alang1216]

Yes, and they all still have wings.

I ate a turkey wing, just last Thanksgiving.

Have you been on the tofu so long, you forgot that?

I get your sarcasm, what I don't get is your point.

 

[ding]

I get your sarcasm, what I don't get is your point.

If I am not mistaken his point is that they still have wings when having wings provides no functional advantage and according to natural selection wings would cease to exist. But what do I know, right?

 

[Seymour Flops]

I get your sarcasm, what I don't get is your point.

I understand and I am happy to explain.

Many living animals have wings but do not fly. With turkeys, the reason make sense. Domestic turkeys were intelligently designed by breeding them from wild turkeys. Wild turkeys had limited flight to begin with, and the domestic ones were bred to have more meat and fat, so they outgrew the ability of their wings to lift them off the ground.

Penguins have wings, but do not fly. The Darwinist explanation is that they became flightless waterfowl and their wings gradually became flippers to guide them underwater when diving for food. That is one of the very few Darwinian explanations that makes some sense, so I'm surprised that Darwinists don't talk about it more often. There is no proof that happened, but lack proof never slows a Darwinist down.

So those are animals that once had wings, and in the case of the turkeys were intelligently designed though breeding to not fly, and in the case of the penguins, presumably lost their ability fly that they had as an unknown version in the past.

But in the case of the non-flying dinosaur with wings and feathers, the explanation defies logic. Why would a species develop wings that never flew under the Darwinist model? What was the survival and reproduction value of useless wings? Especially when they developed from the much more useful front limbs.

Non-flying wings in things that never flew are only known to occur when designed, as evidenced by early attempts at flight. The answer to the the question, "what was the benefit of flightless wings?" is that they were prototypes intelligently designed to further the aim of future flight.

 

[alang1216]

If I am not mistaken his point is that they still have wings when having wings provides no functional advantage and according to natural selection wings would cease to exist. But what do I know, right?

Thanks for the clarification. If they have no function they might well disappear in time. If so that makes these non-flying birds transitional forms I guess. We were looking everywhere for them and they were right there on our plate!

 

[Hollie]

I understand and I am happy to explain.

Many living animals have wings but do not fly. With turkeys, the reason make sense. Domestic turkeys were intelligently designed by breeding them from wild turkeys. Wild turkeys had limited flight to begin with, and the domestic ones were bred to have more meat and fat, so they outgrew the ability of their wings to lift them off the ground.

Penguins have wings, but do not fly. The Darwinist explanation is that they became flightless waterfowl and their wings gradually became flippers to guide them underwater when diving for food. That is one of the very few Darwinian explanations that makes some sense, so I'm surprised that Darwinists don't talk about it more often. There is no proof that happened, but lack proof never slows a Darwinist down.

So those are animals that once had wings, and in the case of the turkeys were intelligently designed though breeding to not fly, and in the case of the penguins, presumably lost their ability fly that they had as an unknown version in the past.

But in the case of the non-flying dinosaur with wings and feathers, the explanation defies logic. Why would a species develop wings that never flew under the Darwinist model? What was the survival and reproduction value of useless wings? Especially when they developed from the much more useful front limbs.

Non-flying wings in things that never flew are only known to occur when designed, as evidenced by early attempts at flight. The answer to the the question, "what was the benefit of flightless wings?" is that they were prototypes intelligently designed to further the aim of future flight.

So…. the gods prototyped some animals in order to, you know, kinda’ see what happens.

OK. Everybody join in on the pick up

Ready?

Here we go.

Row, row, row your boat, gently down……

 

[ding]

Thanks for the clarification. If they have no function they might well disappear in time. If so that makes these non-flying birds transitional forms I guess. We were looking everywhere for them and they were right there on our plate!

Maybe, maybe not. How long have chickens and other flightless birds existed? Because it seems to me they might be MORE proof that long periods of stasis is the norm.

 

[alang1216]

I understand and I am happy to explain.

Many living animals have wings but do not fly. With turkeys, the reason make sense. Domestic turkeys were intelligently designed by breeding them from wild turkeys. Wild turkeys had limited flight to begin with, and the domestic ones were bred to have more meat and fat, so they outgrew the ability of their wings to lift them off the ground.

Penguins have wings, but do not fly. The Darwinist explanation is that they became flightless waterfowl and their wings gradually became flippers to guide them underwater when diving for food. That is one of the very few Darwinian explanations that makes some sense, so I'm surprised that Darwinists don't talk about it more often. There is no proof that happened, but lack proof never slows a Darwinist down.

So those are animals that once had wings, and in the case of the turkeys were intelligently designed though breeding to not fly, and in the case of the penguins, presumably lost their ability fly that they had as an unknown version in the past.

But in the case of the non-flying dinosaur with wings and feathers, the explanation defies logic. Why would a species develop wings that never flew under the Darwinist model? What was the survival and reproduction value of useless wings? Especially when they developed from the much more useful front limbs.

Non-flying wings in things that never flew are only known to occur when designed, as evidenced by early attempts at flight. The answer to the the question, "what was the benefit of flightless wings?" is that they were prototypes intelligently designed to further the aim of future flight.

What you fail to take into account is that gliding is likely a precursor (prototype?) for flight. Plenty of animals have developed the ability to glide to various degrees.