I'm sorry but it was a good argument, why would a creator who had developed a perfectly adapted water creature go on to design a flawed/transitional water creature? It makes no sense to me, the more logical answer is that it once lived on the land.

I'm not not believing because it should be believed, I'm believing because it is the best theory that explains the origin of species and the other hypothesis wants to just "cut the scientific queue" without the required accolades. I study most things I have an opinion on as you know, I'm not a lazy person... Just often controversial lol.

this

For the lulz.  

That's essentially what Kasz has been saying.  Why create creatures that live underwater but have to breathe air?  Why not?  Why do some people build Rube Goldberg devices?   

jeez.

Ok heres something else: FLIGHT

How many times did flight have to evolve independently? Hmmm... Let's see: Birds,Bats, Pterodactyl, insects. Any more?

Ok, so go speak to a statistician. I have. (Accepting the whole current model of evolution) What are the odds of flight evolving just once!? VERY VERY SLIM.

Let's say it's at 1/100000000 which is generous. Then the chance of it evolving 4 times is:
1/100000000000000000000000000000000.

So @ "That's the point of scientific process - you keep trying to break the model and if you do you modify or discard the model, you do this until you have a model that you can't seem to break."

The model isn't as perfect as people are taught. And then ignorant masses just accept what their told.

Oh, two more things @ comments above:
1) I wasn't indoctrinated as a child. I believed in evolution untill I went to Uni.
2) I don't keep Dr in my name to impress anything upon anyone. I don't have a PhD as a changed direction from science to a monastic life and now to law. I do it because I was in a hip-hop band and that was my name in the band. God I'm going to get it now.

Ok, just the reason for my being so pissed off. I don't mind evoluton debates. I think they can be good, but in a forum like this there's no way to do it and some of the comments (not all or even the majority) were ridiculous and even wore: Supportive of each other.

Oh, and about ape-men. Yeah ape-men, monkey-men. I didn't mean literally abviously one is what supposedly happened and the other no way.

peace

@Dr.Grass. So you made a number up and then multiplied it?

I mean, there was no basis for your probability of flight number at all.

@ The Dr.

Wings evolving seem more likely than 1/100000000. Creatures flapped their arms/whatever to try to gain air, those who gained more air survived longer than those who didn't, so eventually the arms/whatever slowly morphed into wings through the fittest passing off their genes. I could imagine this or something similar happening with the ancestors of birds, bats, pterodactyl, incests, flying squrriels and whatever else.

Sorry guys, I got back in a bit drunk last night and started posting.

...

Flight is essentially the same motion as swimming using what is essentially an adapted fin, it is innate in a lot of creatures. But that's not the reason it evolved in the three main types of flying animal, there has to be a catalyst for evolution. I found this paper from university of Berkeley, it is worth a read.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/flight/evolve.html

To summarise the paper, basically we have a more than sufficient fossil record to show the evolution of the wing and there are four main hypotheses on the evolution of the wing.

"
Wings evolved from arms used to capture small prey. (This seems rational, so we can ask whether the ancestral forms were actually doing this.)

Wings evolved because bipedal animals were leaping into the air; large wings assisted leaping. (This is possible; any amount of wing could assist leaping. Remember that we first need phylogenetic evidence for a bipedal running or leaping origin.)

Wings were used as sexual display structures; bigger wings were preferred by potential mates. (This is a non-falsifiable evolutionary hypothesis — we cannot test it.)

Wings evolved from gliding ancestors who began to flap their gliding structures in order to produce thrust. (This is reasonable and possible, but only with phylogenetic evidence for an arboreal gliding origin.)"

And it goes on further. But it says more than I can say.


Oh and I loved the way you made up a number with no basis to develop a probability, where did you learn that trick? Because if I ever did that at university for a thesis they would chew me up and spit out.

...

Let me ask something. Creationists often accept that micro evolution occurs (Standing taller, getting stronger etc...) in reality, do you seriously think after billions of years of animals micro evolving it will essentially just be the same creature?

Are there any testable hypotheses for intelligent design?

It seems there are hundreds for evolution, I have never heard hundreds of testable hypotheses for ID.

You call peole's posts ridiculous, yet you take the liberty to make horribly ignorant remarks and while making up meaningless numbers.

Want to know how flight evolved?  Start with the flying squirrel, who doesnt actually fly but uses is arms and skin to glide.  Birds started out in the same way, they had a slight advantage when they could glide from one place to another, and as their skin became more adequate for flying and their bones became lighter, they were eventually able to fly.

The number you made up, or some bonehead that calls himself a statistician made up, is entirely meaningless.  DNA mutations happen all the time, and over millions of years these small mutations that gave the specie a small advantage pile up.

@highway

I have a test for intelligent design - ask the designer and see if his reponse is intelligent.

I asked. There was no response. Four conclusions -

Designer doesn't want to repond - asshole
Designer can't respond - busy or limited
Designer isn't intelligent enough to respond - stupid
Designer doesn't exist

From my test I have concluded our designer is an asshole, is busy, is limited, is stupid, or doesn't exist.