Prof. Richard Dawkins - What's the good of half a wing?

[salmagnum]

If a creationist performed this sort of comedy routine, he'd be plastered across the web and ridiculed ad infinitum for his "sciencey-ness". What I heard was: "If enough of them splat, the ones remaining will be so scared they'll grow wings." But I thought the natural reaction to mortal fear was to produce feces?? I will have to go back to school and relearn some things...I do know that I have been laughing so hard that I will have to change the Depend again :(

[mime454]

@salmagnum Dawkins was lecturing to children on Christmas Day who were there for leisure. Do you think it would be appropriate for him to go over the dynamics of what causes mutations, and exactly how those mutations implant themselves in the phenotypes of their vehicles?

I would think not! Also, Sexual Selection probably plays a vital role in the Evolution of wings.

[salmagnum]

@mime454 Hey, I didn't know mimes could talk :) No need to get uptight, you're free to coddle any ol fairytale you like...and I'm free to have a hearty chuckle at Richie the magician, he does try o so hard!

[mime454]

@salmagnum I never said anything about my views on Evolution in the last post. I asked if you think it is appropriate for Dawkins to talk about the mechanisms for mutations and how those mutations are gradually incorporated into phenotypes to ≈7-14 year olds who were there for fun?

[salmagnum]

@mime454

a. You lead in mentioning the E word, 2-0

b. No, I am against ANYONE, especially limp-wristed, ivory tower dwelling, snippy, old men, lying to young kids. God has written that it would be better for them if a.) they had a millstone tied around their neck and they were drowned in the sea, or b.) they were never born. Believe you me, they will certainly be wishing for b on the Day of Judgement. Some ppl will just have to learn the hard way, as they say. I am hoping you are smarter?

[mime454]

@salmagnum If you can't beat 'em on scientific merit, threaten them with hellfire. How utterly repulsive of you.

[salmagnum]

@mime454 O, I haven't found an evo yet I couldn't absolutely wax scientifically. And I'm not even that smart :) If you are up for the challenge, feel free to pm me with whatever proof you have for your evo theology.

P.S. I can't threaten you with hellfire, but I can show you where God does.To go through life bemoaning that God hasn't come down and tapped you on the shoulder, and claiming He doesn't exist, is the equivalent of sticking your head in the sand and complaining you can't see the sun!

[01101100d]

If i were a millionaire, id hire Dawkins to teach my kids as top choice

[mikeeboy1000]

Sadly he believes the rubbish he preaches has actually happened, despite the fact that neither he nor anyone on planet earth has found anything that even hints at biological evolution from simple to complex! If he had evidence he would not have used a stupid puppet show to woo the crowd, but produced it for all to see! Faith, is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see, and the hoped for transitional fossils some are sure exist, we NEVER EVER SEE, despite their certainty!

[BEAST636]

@mikeeboy1000 You mentioned biological evolution. According to evolutionary biologists, what is evolution and how does it work?

Thanks.

[mikeeboy1000]

@BEAST636 Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection postulates that as variations appear in living things, the superior varieties thus formed tend to emerge victorious in the struggle for life with only the fittest surviving. Thus slowly over time NEW and HIGHER forms develop. This change he saw was only variation of already present genes and finally conceded that it did not lead to NEW and HIGHER forms as believed. Variation mutation and environmental factors don't make NEW information.

[BEAST636]

@mikeeboy1000 "This change he saw was only variation of already present genes and finally conceded that it did not lead to NEW and HIGHER forms as believed."

Where does Darwin say that?

[mikeeboy1000]

@BEAST636 In a gem of a book called "Darwin, Evolution, and Creation", by Concordia Publishing House, Saint Louis, Missouri. 1959. pg.. 22-23. Well worth getting if you can find it.

[BEAST636]

@mikeeboy1000 I think i'll give it a miss thanks. It'll be like buying a book on healthy nutritional food only to find out it was written by an anorexic!

Oh and by the way, i wanted proof that Darwin wrote those words NOT from a creationist that puked them up...

[mikeeboy1000]

Sadly for atheists Science is a closed system where ONLY their preconceived biased naturalistic opinions are allowed as the Supernatural is ruled out a priori! Fleeming Jenkin, "Origin of Species" North British Review, XLVI (1867), p.149-171, Francis Darwin, Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, ( London: John Murray, 1888) p.379. And Darwin even wrote in the 6th Edition of "Origin" on p.84 of his new view on the subject! Atheists of the day ignored him as his THEORY SEEMINGLY removed the Creator!

[skepticnyc]

@mikeeboy1000

what do you mean sadly?

That's awesome.

[FrankBiggle]

@mikeeboy1000 You are so, hilariously ignorant. As a starting exercise, why don't you provide us all with evidence for a creator god.

[CafecitoConLeche]

lol at that shirt ...

[bravetoday]

Ok, this video assumes a height based mechanisim to drive wing growth from a stub to a full wing, but there is a major problem with it. There is not a shred of transitory fossilic evidence (physical proof) to show that wings took a gradular development, therfore this assumption did not happen. Dawkins is still in the dark ages of scientific fact. To date, there are no verifiable trans. fossils to prove Evolution.

[BEAST636]

First of all, educate yourself on what science is and HOW it works. Most christians around the world accept evolution.

Why did god create birds WITH wings but don't have the ability to fly!?

Google image search for "flightless cormorant" and tell me WHY your god bothered to create pathetic wings that DISable flight!!

[bravetoday]

First of all Christians do not accept Evolution as fact. Genesis is not in any way consistent with Evolution. Where is your proof (fossil photos not sketches) of the wing's gradual development? There is none. Not anywhere. Based on science itself, Evolution never happened.

[BEAST636]

The church of England recently publicly apologized to Charles Darwin! FACT!

Yes the theory of evolution is in conflict with genesis and i actually respect you more than the christians that seem to cherry pick the information when they like!

This aside, i'd like you to comment on the "flightless cormorant".

[BEAST636]

I'd like you to explain to me what evolution is and HOW it works according to evolutionary biologists.

Every time i debate with people that deny evolution, it turns out they don't KNOW what it is and how it happens...

[bravetoday]

Phalacrocorax Harrisi? The Flightless Cormorant has a loss of a feature, not the gain of a new adaptation! This proves Entropy which counters the theory of positive mutations in natural selection. And modern German Shepards are now genetically prone to hip dysplasia too. The estimates for "extinct" species ranges over millions! Animals are not evolving to survive, they are losing information and dying.

[albinoman13bt]

You don't actually believe that do you? Fossils are incredibly uncommon. If every person who ever lived in the US died and was disposed of naturally, the odds show that only one would make it to fossilization. My 2nd and 3rd toes are webbed and it's inherited. What purpose could God have for that? None. You cover your eyes to the overwhelming mountain of evidence. All fossils, including the one you might become, are transitory. Evolution is a journey, not a destination.

[bravetoday]

@albinoman13bt We have millions of near complete fossils going all the way back to dinosaurs. I can tell by the way your write that your knowledge of Evolution is weak. Mountain of evidence? Where's the evidence for the journey? Name for me one single verifiable transitional fossil that proves Evolution to be true.

[albinoman13bt]

@bravetoday Fossilization is incredibly rare, but when multiplied out over a couple hundred million years it seems there are a lot. You can't prove evolution on a single fossil. What do you see what you see 2 million years of humans and their ancestors lined up? How about the similarities in fetuses from various animals? The closer we're related the longer we look alike. The same little nub that turns into gills in fish we use to make the bones in out inner ear.

[albinoman13bt]

@bravetoday #2 Retroviruses, like HIV, copy their DNA directly into the host DNA, becoming a permanent part of the genes for that cell. Incredibly rarely, a retrovirus copies itself into an egg or sperm or embryo. If it doesn't harm them it will eventually spread to become part of, ie bred into, the genome of the species. Human and apes have some of the same viruses copied in, in the exact same place. This only possible if we shared a common ancestor.

[bravetoday]

@albinoman13bt You have just walked yourself into a landmine trying to use DNA or viruses as evidence for Evolution. Everyone knows that tired argument can no longer be used. As Humans we share 50% of our DNA with bananas! - Steve Jones, Professor of Genetics at University College, London. By the way there is ZERO evidence for R. Dawkin's magical, missing link, common ancestor to humans or even to apes. No fossils... zero proof brother!

[albinoman13bt]

@bravetoday I am using that argument, it's only tired cause it can on be reiterated so many times before a person realizes that the other not only doesn't get it, they're afraid to. Sharing genes with bananas would only corroborate evolution more. So all those fossils of creatures more advanced than ape, but not quite human are.... what? The only you can possibly believe all those scientists are lying is because religion has successfully lied for a few millenia.

[albinoman13bt]

@bravetoday #3 Furthermore, almost* all mammals share the common characteristic of live birth. The egg is incubated inside the mother, a great evolutionary advantage. The method used to bond the embryo to the uterus is the same used by viruses to attach to our cells. Upon closer examination, we are replicating, from within our own genes, a virus to cause this bonding. *Platypus and echidna are mammals that lay eggs. They diverged before this infection.

[wollin20]

@bravetoday They exist, from non flying feathered dinosaurs discovered in China to archeopteryx (several specimens from Germany) which probably couldn't take off but was a good glider. Feel free not to watch them, but they exist. Actually, when archeopteryx was first discovered, the scientists hadn't seen yet the feather print and classified it without a problem as another dinosaur. So claiming it is just "another bird" is a creationist lie.

[bravetoday]

@wollin20 Archaeopteryx had complete feathers like modern birds. Evolutionists attempt to claim that Archaeopteryx had characteristics similar to reptiles, however, that idea could be also be argued of almost any vertebrate skeleton! Archaeopteryx was not a trans. fossil at all. Desperate and brainwashed Evolutionists just refuse to believe the real data before them.

[wollin20]

@bravetoday Wow, you know birds with teeth, claws under the wings, a bony tail without merged bones, no breastbone (to name some characteristics all dinosaurs share)....I am really interested in knowing them! And of course it had complete feathers: It is transitional!!! (if you get the meaning of this word). Desperate religious believers are saying some amazing bullshit sometimes. You didn't even read my answer: True dinosaurs fossils with complete feathers are known...

[albinoman13bt]

@bravetoday How can you even speak of dinosaurs when it's entirely clear that who ever wrote the Bible had no clue of their existence, much less that they've been dead for 65m years? You'd be better off taking the "God's test of faith" argument. You can't even use the old metaphor claim for creation out of Genesis either, since the they were "created" in the wrong order.

[originxxx]

i'm confused, when Dawkins is talking about flange is he refering to natural selection or survival of the fittest?

[BEAST636]

The term "Survival of the Fittest" means the fittest genes. These genes are selected by the circumstances in nature - Natural Selection.

[TLCTugger]

I want my kids to sit at the feet of such a master.

[superfisto]

Also, flying fish have "half" wings!

[BEAST636]

Yes i'll upload my Attenborough clip of the flying fish. Thanks for reminding me.

I'm also working on a video (my own) of flightless birds. I have a list of 33 so far. There must be hundreds and that's without including the extinct ones!!

[superfisto]

Awesome. Thank you for uploading these clips. I really appreciate it.

[superfisto]

Good stuff. Thanks for posting this.

My girlfriend says that young Dawkins is almost as sexy as the mature Dawkins we see now. I'm really only interested in the scientific, pro-evolution arguments!