"I have absolute proof evolution is wrong. " Topic

Ken Ham is going to worship me for this.

As a mosquito was bussing around. It dawn on me. The silent mosquitos would not only have a better survival than noisy obesm but they would also get more blood.
Since mosquitos have existed for millions upon millions of years. If evolution was true. Then naturally the mosquito would have evolved to be completely silent by now.

But it hasn't so evolution is wrong.

How can they fly without buzzing?

How can a fish breath with out air? If evolution was true the mosquito would have found a way sometime during the last 350 million years

Didn't need to?

Or some have and other (crafty s) buzz just to distract you from the hunter killers that you don't even know are attacking you.

Who would have thought a derogatory slang for bug would get the bleep?

And here I thought you were talking about the Potoo

Evolution must be true. I've seen dinosaurs go from scales to feathers in my lifetime!!!

And I've seen "scientists" go from being 100% sure that the dinos had no feathers, to being 100% sure that the dinos had feathers. All this without ever admitting that they were wrong. Oh the miracles of science!

Dan
link
YouTube link

And I've seen "scientists" go from being 100% sure that the dinos had no feathers, to being 100% sure that the dinos had feathers. All this without ever admitting that they were wrong. Oh the miracles of science!

Total BS, as usual.

Please supply one example where palaeontologists ever stated that they were 100% sure that dinosaurs had no feathers. I won't hold my breath.

Not that you actually care, but scientists in the late 1800's were already suspecting that birds had evolved from certain groups of dinosaurs. The archaeopteryx was discovered in 1861. Over the next 150 years more and more species of feathered dinosaurs have been discovered, increasing our collective knowledge. That is how science actually works, Dan.

And no, scientists aren't saying all dinosaurs have feathers, in case you are trying to suggest that. In fact most don't. All feathered dinosaurs fall into only two clades: ornithischians and theropods. That may change too, as more discoveries are made. Again, that is how science works.

As for being wrong, the only one wrong here is you. Fractally wrong.

LOL. Just the reaction I expected. You are such an easy mark.

And did I say they ALL had feathers?

Dan
PS. I guess all the fault for the consistent lack of feathers for generations, in reconstructions, film and illustrations, must lie on the artists then?

If evolution was true. Then naturally the mosquito would have evolved to be completely silent by now.

That's assuming that the mosquito's buzzing wings would only be a detriment to the fitness of the insect. If there were no benefits to the buzzing sound, then we would expect to see "silent" mosquitos.

How can they fly without buzzing?

The buzzing doesn't come from the beating of the wings against the air. It is the sound of the Stridulating organ which rubs on the mosquitos wing that makes the sound (discovered in 1902). So why evolve a special organ to make this sound when the wings move? To attract a mate. Very important evolutionary pressure right there.

And did I say they ALL had feathers?

No, and I didn't say you did. Perhaps a reread is in order. The gist of your argument of how "wrong" the scientists are about feathered dinosaurs is fractally wrong.

PS. I guess all the fault for the consistent lack of feathers for generations, in reconstructions, film and illustrations, must lie on the artists then?

No interest on that speculation, but even the term dinosaur is a misnomer.

@Bowman: "And no, scientists aren't saying all dinosaurs have feathers, in case you are trying to suggest that."

Yes, perhaps a re-read is in order.

Dan

I know what I wrote. Reading comprehension is a lost art.

So I guess my request for one example supporting your initial claim is not coming through?

The proof is in the puddin'.

I already asked you why none of the representations ever showed a single feather. If they were so open to the possibility they could have feathers, at least a few paleontologist would have ventured to depict them with some.

You are right. "Reading comprehension is a lost art."

Dan
PS. I'm glad you know what you wrote. That's excellent!.

I already asked you why none of the representations ever showed a single feather. If they were so open to the possibility they could have feathers, at least a few paleontologist would have ventured to depict them with some.

And I answered you. How does that bolster your argument for, "And I've seen "scientists" go from being 100% sure that the dinos had no feathers,……?"

I'm glad you know what you wrote.

One of us has to.

Yes. And I absolutely loved your "answer":

"No interest on that speculation, but even the term dinosaur is a misnomer."

Dan

Cacique and Bowman, I sense a man-crush developing

Ok. Ok. Just for Bowman though:

YouTube link

Dan

Thanks Dan, that actually cracked me up.

Can we look at a very famous dinosaur? The Velociraptor. There are two known species. They are Theropods, and they have feathers.

Now Google "Jurassic World" and you will get a host of photos from the movie. Notice the feathers on the Velociraptors? No, neither did I. Also, notice how tall the velociraptors are? Ya, in reality a Velociraptor was about one third to one half the size as the ones depicted in the film. Scientists know this. What is depicted in film and illustrations, cannot be laid at the feet of those that know better. Hence the "no interest" comment. Did you get the second part of my comment?

A man I admire, Thomas Henry Huxley proposed that birds had evolved from certain dinosaurs and he proposed that some would be feathered.

Huxley, T.H. (1868). "On the animals which are most nearly intermediate between birds and reptiles". Annals and Magazine of Natural History. 4th. 2: 66–75.

Of course that wasn't a great leap as he had seen the fossils coming from Germany just a few years before in 1861. These fossils clearly show fossilized Feather imprints. Fossilized feathers are extremely rare and require very strict circumstances to occur. That is what held back the feathered dinosaur concept, plenty of fossils.

The closest thing I can find for "feathered dinosaur denial" is with Richard Owen (died 1882). He thought that archaeopteryx was not a dinosaur. Turns out he was wrong. He also thought Evolution didn't exist and criticized Darwin's theories. With that he was also wrong.

link

Glad you enjoyed that.

I should have clarified further, but I meant scientific publications and documentaries, as well as large exhibit reconstructions made for use in museums. Not Hollywood's depictions.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but, Richard Owen aside, archaeopteryx and the other feathered microraptors were sold to us as oddities linking reptiles and birds, but not as something representative of "dinosaurs" as a whole. That is why for decades velociraptor and large theropods were never shown with feathers in any scientific publication or museum rendition I ever laid eyes on.

If feathers were really considered as a possibility for typical theropods, one would expect at least a few alternate views offered. If those depictions existed it was not something widely shared in textbooks.

It wasn't until just a few decades ago that the feathered theropod idea was proposed and became widely accepted and was finally reflected in illustrations and museum exhibit reconstructions.

Dan
PS. I've rewritten the above a couple of times and it still sounds a bit incoherent. I need to go to sleep. I'll check back later for comments. Nite nite.

It would be a classic TMP "personal attack" to say they have no sense of humor.
Occasionally I have skated by by saying that "someone in the room is immune to irony".

>> Evolution must be true. I've seen dinosaurs go from scales to feathers in my lifetime!!!

How old are you?

link

If all previous identified diapsids lacked feathers, wouldn't the null hypothesis be that diapsids lack feathers, and thus inform artist's depictions? If some fossil diapsids are found with feathers, shouldn't this change our understanding of these animals?

link

"A scientific theory is empirical and is always open to falsification if new evidence is presented. That is, no theory is ever considered strictly certain as science accepts the concept of fallibilism. The philosopher of science Karl Popper sharply distinguished truth from certainty. He wrote that scientific knowledge 'consists in the search for truth,' but it 'is not the search for certainty … All human knowledge is fallible and therefore uncertain.'"

>> LOL. Just the reaction I expected. You are such an easy mark.

Is deliberate trolling a doghouseable offense?

Dan, everything you said was basically correct. The depictions were based on lack of evidence, not because scientists "knew that dinosaurs had no feathers". In the 1880s ( I believe) Huxley gave lectures in NYC where he showed his sketches for feathered dinosaurs. It just took a long time to actually find them. At about the same time Archeopteryx was accepted as a dinosaur. Doesn't mean your original contention is true.

It's like saying no one believed the Higgs Boson existed until they found one a CERN. Now everyone believes it to exist. That's not what happened either.

Since mosquitos have existed for millions upon millions of years. If evolution was true. Then naturally the mosquito would have evolved to be completely silent by now.

This hits the three main problems people have with understanding evolution:

1) There is some absolute, universal standard of what "fittest" means for a species, and it doesn't vary over time.

2) That standard must comply with some type of one-sentence long human logic statement.

3) Something that has a calculable probability to happen must happen within some finite time limit.

I second WS's view.

Mosquitos *did* evolve to be silent, but then we evolved to hear them We probably went around this gate several times.

Are we the mosquito's primary food source? Maybe they are silent, to the animals they get most of their blood from.

Plus, there are plenty of cases of animals evolving to be less than perfect in some respect because being better, while good for the individual, was somehow bad for the *species*, and evolution works to the advantage of species over individual.

There is some absolute, universal standard of what "fittest" means for a species, and it doesn't vary over time.

The adapted characteristics of an individuall that allows for it's genetic contribution to subsequent generations.

The ways and means by which the individual becomes better adapted changes all the time, based on environmental and competitive stresses.

Of course the original claim misses quite a lot of things:

1). Is it even possible for a mosquito to fly silently? If not, then the original assertion is pointless.

2). Is it possible to achieve that silent flight via small steps that are evolutionarily advantageous, or at least neutral, such that silent flight can be achieved? If not, then the original assertion is pointless.

3). Is non silent flight enough of a disadvantage to drive evolutionary adaption? If not, then the original assertion is pointless. Note that humans are most certainly *not* the primary food source of most mosquitoes. The primary human feedback into mosquito evolution is via pesticides, not swatting.

4). If all of the above answer positively, then the question becomes "What are the evolutionary *costs* of such adaptions?". If the cost of becoming silent is greater than the gain, then there will be no pressure to drive the adaptation, and the original assertion is again pointless.

Evolution is not magic, unlikel Ken Ham's alternative. It can not simply choose the maximal advantage and implement it. It is rather a system that rewards species that have managed "good enough" and, more importantly, punishes those that haven't.

Is it even possible for a mosquito to fly silently? If not, then the original assertion is pointless.

No, technically the mosquito cannot go into "stealth" mode. However, the buzzing noise has nothing to do with the mosquito's ability to fly. Many spiders and insects have stridulating organs which make noise as certain body parts rub together. When moving the wings, stridulating appendages also move and rub together, thereby creating the buzzing sound. They do not "buzz" as a necessity of flight, rather have evolved to buzz while they fly.

Is it possible to achieve that silent flight via small steps that are evolutionarily advantageous, or at least neutral, such that silent flight can be achieved?

That depends if silent or quieter flight gives the individual sufficient advantage over it's colleagues such that it produces more offspring each successive generation. And also that the non-silent flight produces other benefits due to the buzzing.

Is non silent flight enough of a disadvantage to drive evolutionary adaption?

Depends on how mosquito predators hunt. Robber flies hunt by keen eyesight so maybe a quiet mosquito will still be predated, regardless of sounds made. We know how spiders capture and devour mosquitoes. The buzzing may not have any affect here either. And insectivore bats detect their dinner by bouncing their own pitched sounds off of the intended prey. In higher lifeforms, being silent usually means a greater ability for surviving. Don't know how that fits with mosquitoes.

If all of the above answer positively, then the question becomes "What are the evolutionary *costs* of such adaptions?"

I don't think any of the answers are a definitive yes. (A qualified "no", and two "depends") However, entomologists believe the buzzing sound attracts mates for breeding. No point in avoiding any sound based predator and then not being able to find a mate.

Evolution is not magic, unlikel Ken Ham's alternative. It can not simply choose the maximal advantage and implement it.

Yep it's not magic. An individual within a species undergoes a random mutation, perhaps producing a different phenotypic variance from the other individuals. If that variance produces a greater degree of "fitness" in that given environment, then that may translate to a greater amount of offspring produced, each carrying that mutation. And that part is definitely not random. (Most of the time these variations actually do the opposite.) You are right, Evolution does not "choose" any advantages nor does it "implement" them. It also has no purpose or end game.

The problem with your hypothesis GunFreak is that you are assuming that silent flight would be an advantage to a mosquito. There may be very good reasons for a mosquito to make noise. Perhaps, like bats they navigate using the sound of their wings.

Perhaps loud wings are a way a male mosquito lets the females know that he is the biggest and strongest and thus the bearer of the best DNA.

Perhaps loud wings are an accepted disadvantage since flying faster might be worth the trade-off.

In other words, perhaps the noise a mosquito makes when flying is more than balanced by the enhanced speed and maneuverability that comes with louder wings.

Finally, I offer that for every mosquito you hear you've been stung by dozens that you didn't. I'd even bet that most of those you have heard, stung you and got away with it.

Yep it's not magic. An individual within a species undergoes a random mutation, perhaps producing a different phenotypic variance from the other individuals. If that variance produces a greater degree of "fitness" in that given environment, then that may translate to a greater amount of offspring produced…

Exactly. Every individual is born with mutations. The breaking and remaking of our DNA during conception is never perfect. As a consequence, changes in the environment can stress different species and even individuals within a species to different degrees giving some a reproductive advantage of the others. This is especially the case when the environment changes abruptly--geologically speaking.

Mandt2, what you say is correct however:

The problem with your hypothesis GunFreak is that you are………

I don't think GunFreak is seriously suggesting that. He is being sarcastic at Ken Hamm's expense. But even the tongue in cheek hypothesis fails for the reasons given.

Exactly. Every individual is born with mutations. The breaking and remaking of our DNA during conception is never perfect.

Don't forget imperfect DNA replication during the cell division that goes on throughout every individual's lifetime.

Imperfect? Everyone? Not me!

Dan

Lol! The reason you are such a perfect specimen is because your DNA always undergoes imperfect replication, transcription and translation, thus allowing small changes to intrude. Evolution in action, buddy!