Impressive, but that still doesn't do much to prove the evolution of bird's wings, which are completely different structures, with feathers and everything. Evolutionists would have us believe that proto-birds were like these lizards, gliding around with webbed feet, until one day, the structure of their front feet changed, and elongated enormously, and developed feathers! Not convincing.
@BEAST636 : If it's not meant to show the evolution of bird wings, why is it entitled "What good is half a wing"? Surely you would not call what these lizards and snakes have as "half-wings" would you? Good question about flightless birds, though. But it's possible still these animals did not "evolve" but were that way since inception of the world. I just cannot see the process whereby mutated offspring would survive with half a wing, and beat out the others to boot.
@furlip "why is it entitled "What good is half a wing"?"
This video was uploaded after i uploaded the video "Prof. Richard Dawkins - What's the good of half a wing?" in which creationists had asked him the question. This video is an extension to that video although i agree that it needs retitling.
"But it's possible still these animals did not "evolve" but were that way since inception of the world."
@BEAST636 : I'm not religious, believe it or not. I don't anthropomorphize any higher power, therefore if there is one, I don't think that it could answer my "why" questions. However, scientists maintain that the evo-scenario is that mutant offspring with wings actually had a survival advantage over their brethren. They, in turn, had to reproduce mutant proto-wing types, etc. But mutations are rare, and often deadly. I don't see how being born without fingers one day helps a newborn survive
@furlip You commented on this video 9 months ago & you still don't know how evolution works.
"evo-scenario"? You mean the theory of evolution? Some research you've made....
"mutant offspring with wings" There were no mutant offspring with wings!! Please let me know where you got this information from. What scientist? or rather, what creationist?
Google image the "fruit bat" & look at how their wings have massive elongated fingers. Evolution works by "tinkering" with existing body parts.
@BEAST636 : don't be insulting. Evo-scenario is the scenarios that scientists try and give us on how wings evolved--how mutant offspring were born with incremental wings. I can't just call that "evolution"--it's a specific scenario meant to explain mutations of wing-like parts. But you still haven't addressed how these mutations could work, have you? How does a mutant offspring, with bad chance of survival, have other mutants, and beat out the old species? Interspeciation is the issue.
@furlip "How does a mutant offspring, with bad chance of survival, have other mutants"
It doesn't, it dies!
NATURAL SELECTION! If something is born with a disadvantage then it is less likely to survive in time to reproduce. That negative trait or mutation won't get passed on to the next generation. This is why things look designed, because we don't see all the failures... It's a psychological trick where by we only 'see' part of the story and therefore 'assume' we're created.
@BEAST636 : If you KNOW how evolution works, then try to explain the scenario to me. Gross morphology mutations are rare for a reason--they are a serious liability to the offspring born with them. Not only would an animal born with webbed-digits have a much harder time than his parents in survival, but he'd have to have offspring with the same mutation, and they would have to be an ADVANTAGE from his ancestors to speciate. Explain this please, expert.
@furlip "Not only would an animal born with webbed-digits have a much harder time than his parents in survival"
How would webbed feet be a disadvantage in water? or to act as a parachute? In nature, you'll find a massive amount of animals with different stages of webbed feet. It doesn't happen in ONE mutation but in incremental stages, each one out performing the other. Natural selection filters out the bad...
These examples indeed do not show how birds evolved their wings, but they do provide examples of functional 'half-wings'. Half a wing is very useful if you want to jump down from a tree to surprise a prey.
Impressive, but that still doesn't do much to prove the evolution of bird's wings, which are completely different structures, with feathers and everything. Evolutionists would have us believe that proto-birds were like these lizards, gliding around with webbed feet, until one day, the structure of their front feet changed, and elongated enormously, and developed feathers! Not convincing.
furlip 2 years ago
It's not meant to show the evolution of birds wings. It's meant to show how some animals have evolved to take advantage of flight.
Google image search for "flightless birds" and ask yourself WHY!
BEAST636 2 years ago
@BEAST636 : If it's not meant to show the evolution of bird wings, why is it entitled "What good is half a wing"? Surely you would not call what these lizards and snakes have as "half-wings" would you? Good question about flightless birds, though. But it's possible still these animals did not "evolve" but were that way since inception of the world. I just cannot see the process whereby mutated offspring would survive with half a wing, and beat out the others to boot.
furlip 1 year ago
@furlip "why is it entitled "What good is half a wing"?"
This video was uploaded after i uploaded the video "Prof. Richard Dawkins - What's the good of half a wing?" in which creationists had asked him the question. This video is an extension to that video although i agree that it needs retitling.
"But it's possible still these animals did not "evolve" but were that way since inception of the world."
So why would a god bother to create half a wing??
BEAST636 1 year ago
@BEAST636 : I'm not religious, believe it or not. I don't anthropomorphize any higher power, therefore if there is one, I don't think that it could answer my "why" questions. However, scientists maintain that the evo-scenario is that mutant offspring with wings actually had a survival advantage over their brethren. They, in turn, had to reproduce mutant proto-wing types, etc. But mutations are rare, and often deadly. I don't see how being born without fingers one day helps a newborn survive
furlip 1 year ago
@furlip You commented on this video 9 months ago & you still don't know how evolution works.
"evo-scenario"? You mean the theory of evolution? Some research you've made....
"mutant offspring with wings" There were no mutant offspring with wings!! Please let me know where you got this information from. What scientist? or rather, what creationist?
Google image the "fruit bat" & look at how their wings have massive elongated fingers. Evolution works by "tinkering" with existing body parts.
BEAST636 1 year ago
@BEAST636 : don't be insulting. Evo-scenario is the scenarios that scientists try and give us on how wings evolved--how mutant offspring were born with incremental wings. I can't just call that "evolution"--it's a specific scenario meant to explain mutations of wing-like parts. But you still haven't addressed how these mutations could work, have you? How does a mutant offspring, with bad chance of survival, have other mutants, and beat out the old species? Interspeciation is the issue.
furlip 1 year ago
@furlip "How does a mutant offspring, with bad chance of survival, have other mutants"
It doesn't, it dies!
NATURAL SELECTION! If something is born with a disadvantage then it is less likely to survive in time to reproduce. That negative trait or mutation won't get passed on to the next generation. This is why things look designed, because we don't see all the failures... It's a psychological trick where by we only 'see' part of the story and therefore 'assume' we're created.
BEAST636 1 year ago
@BEAST636 : If you KNOW how evolution works, then try to explain the scenario to me. Gross morphology mutations are rare for a reason--they are a serious liability to the offspring born with them. Not only would an animal born with webbed-digits have a much harder time than his parents in survival, but he'd have to have offspring with the same mutation, and they would have to be an ADVANTAGE from his ancestors to speciate. Explain this please, expert.
furlip 1 year ago
@furlip "Not only would an animal born with webbed-digits have a much harder time than his parents in survival"
How would webbed feet be a disadvantage in water? or to act as a parachute? In nature, you'll find a massive amount of animals with different stages of webbed feet. It doesn't happen in ONE mutation but in incremental stages, each one out performing the other. Natural selection filters out the bad...
BEAST636 1 year ago
@furlip
These examples indeed do not show how birds evolved their wings, but they do provide examples of functional 'half-wings'. Half a wing is very useful if you want to jump down from a tree to surprise a prey.
jnoort 1 year ago
And THAT, is what good 'half a wing' is.
(And for those who still wonder about 'half a wing' compare Colugo's and Bat's for fun. I am willing to bet proto-bats looked like colugo's...)
Shavarnarak 2 years ago
thtas not half a wing, its a seaprate fully formed flying mechanism>
zenithar6666 1 year ago
skydive!
random0vids 2 years ago