By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
highwaystar101 on 10 October 2009
Edit Thread
Slimebeast said:
highwaystar101 said:
Slimebeast said:

About wings. Why arent there any species on their way to develop wings, but thousands of species with regressed wings (which have some use, but cant be flied with any more)
(some bugs and other insects, bats, penguins, ostriches, kiwi etc)

I need a good explanation for that, because statistically it doesn't make any sense.


Manusjustus and bdbdbdbd have already answered this so I wont because I want to bring up a different point. Surely the fact that you have acknowledged that thousands of species have regressed wings proves you actually accept evolution. Remember organ evolution doesn't just have to be progressive, it can be regressive too.

 


I'm going to be honest and I really hope that it doesn't offend you. I think you are obviously one of, if not the most intelligent and logical member on the site (and I don't mind admitting that). That aside, I get the feeling with you that you do in fact accept evolution in the back of your mind, but you repress it somehow. When you speak about evolution it's not the same type of denial that many members show, you don't argue in the same way. When I read your arguments I always have a feeling that you are arguing against it but you accept subconsciously, even if you don't consciously.

 


I hope I didn't offend you, sorry if I was a bit brutally honest there.

Thanks for the compliments.

That's a great analysis. There's a lot of truth to it. I admit that as a Christian it lies in my interest that evolution is false, while there's lots of evidence pointing towards evolution. I guess this is why ID was 'invented' basically.

But it's also for technical reasons in evo discussions much easier to argue from a 'let's assume this for a second, however...' methodology, like in the regression of wings example.

(btw just a note, many creationist sort of accept organ and trait regression - I dont remember the term for it, but as long as there's no evidence for 'de-novo evolution' it's okay, and from a relgious point of view regression is part of the defect state of the world - you could say sort of a Satanic devolution, or something, which also explains why people early in Biblical history lived 800 years while now diseases and defects kill us early)

 

 

Oh good, I'm so glad that I didn't offend you. Even though I was being honest, I thought maybe I was crossing a line there. But it's all good.

About the Christian "bias" if you will. I've never understood the whole evolution/big bang Christian thing anyway. Obviously there are a few problems between the two but I believe it was pope John Paul II who said something like...

"Evolution and the big bang are perfectly compatible theories with Christianity, as long as long as you accept god was the creator then why couldn't evolution and the big bang just be his methods of creation?".

I think that was severely paraphrased as it was from memory, but you get the point. If there is a god then why shouldn't these be his methods of creation? They obviously work, regardless of who or what started it.