How Evolution Proves a Flat Earth

ClockTower is an expert in words that mean wrong, false or erroneous. We throw them at him all the time.

ClockTower is an expert in words that mean wrong, false or erroneous. We throw them at him all the time.

Pongo was making the point the were never proven false.

Quote from: Thork on October 27, 2010, 11:29:14 AM

ClockTower is an expert in words that mean wrong, false or erroneous. We throw them at him all the time.

Pongo was making the point the were never proven false.

Once more in English, please. Why would he then suggest a synonym?

Don't you mean in Englsh?

You will note before that post, I had desperately tried to have the proper debate, discussing bird altitudes, speeds distances etc. Follow the thread and see how much ClockTower contributes from my first post in it, until I give up and show him another penguin.

Having been forced to give up on the debate, I do not follow the penguin story on. I had left through frustration and given up in this thread. The penguin is the last post.

So the trolls are now blaming other supposed trolls for trolling.

You could have ignored ClockTower and answered Dr. Logic, who demolished the OP a few pages ago, or my own posts, made some months ago, Or any of the others that you do not blame for the abysmal quality of this thread. But you like to play word games with ClockTower.

There is a real possibility in this thread of showing people how Evolution really works, but trolls like you, who profess the intention to help people learn something but then just troll, make that impossible.

It is best if you just do what you are saying and leave the thread.

Quote from: Thork on October 27, 2010, 08:26:48 AM

You will note before that post, I had desperately tried to have the proper debate, discussing bird altitudes, speeds distances etc. Follow the thread and see how much ClockTower contributes from my first post in it, until I give up and show him another penguin.

Having been forced to give up on the debate, I do not follow the penguin story on. I had left through frustration and given up in this thread. The penguin is the last post.

So the trolls are now blaming other supposed trolls for trolling.

You could have ignored ClockTower and answered Dr. Logic, who demolished the OP a few pages ago, or my own posts, made some months ago, Or any of the others that you do not blame for the abysmal quality of this thread. But you like to play word games with ClockTower.

There is a real possibility in this thread of showing people how Evolution really works, but trolls like you, who profess the intention to help people learn something but then just troll, make that impossible.

It is best if you just do what you are saying and leave the thread.

There are 26 pages of this thread trig. I could pick any random point to debate, but it makes more sense to debate the posts most recently made. I do not owe you an explanation for your posts some months ago. It would be ridiculous to go pouring through long threads like this to find them and would make my post enormous reacting to every other comment made. My first post was in reaction to Dr Logic, who has not since replied. The quality is abysmal. I agree. FE has to set outs its stall - Pongo did that. The whole thread boils down to ...

I can't even follow what everyone is arguing for or against in this thread. My best guess is that some people are saying something along the lines of "birds fly too high for the world to be round because if it were round they would fly lower in order to decrease distance flown, ergo the Earth is flat" and others are saying "the increase in distance is negligible so the world could still be round"

My side is FE. Pongo provided the solution for FE. It is the round earthers job to say the reason they fly higher is the advantages gained in TAS at altitude. If I argue both sides of a debate in every thread, not only will I become schizophrenic, it then becomes a monologue of my mind. Not a debate.

And the crux of this debate has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is Pongo's FE side of the story. The answer lies in aerodynamics for RE. Flying high has advantages of its own. That's why airliners fly at 30,000 ft.

It is the round earthers job to say the reason they fly higher is the advantages gained in TAS at altitude.

False. FEers need to show that Pongo's claim is correct that flying a long distance over the RE would be more efficient at a lower altitude than the observed altitude. You have not, so the OP is not substantiated. Do try to follow better.

What? That's just gibberish!

REers need to show that Pongo's claim is correct that flying a long distance over the RE would be more efficient at a lower altitude than the observed altitude.

Why do RErs need to prove what pongo said is correct? He argued for FE. If he's right that makes you wrong. Do try to follow better.

What? That's just gibberish!

Quote

RFEers need to show that Pongo's claim is correct that flying a long distance over the RE would be more efficient at a lower altitude than the observed altitude.

Why do RErs need to prove what pongo said is correct? He argued for FE. If he's right that makes you wrong. Do try to follow better.

Sorry. Typo. Fixed.

And the crux of this debate has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is Pongo's FE side of the story. The answer lies in aerodynamics for RE. Flying high has advantages of its own. That's why airliners fly at 30,000 ft.

How can a thread called "How Evolution Proves a Flat Earth" not be about Evolution?

You can argue the side you choose, but the only sides are either "yes, this is the evolutionary process that would work differently and this is why" or "no, there are no evolutionary processes that would clearly work differently on one model compared to the other, and this is why your example fails".

Dr. Logic, among others, has made the valid point that a 0.16% difference in distance has no effect at all in evolutionary processes, and you did not argue against that, you just started a shouting contest with ClockTower.

You can easily see that lions that are 0.16% faster or with 0.16% more endurance do not have a significant advantage that translates into them being the ones with most offspring. Darwin himself saw that stronger birds sometimes have the evolutionary advantage and sometimes not. Evolution is not about a single ability, it is about the overall adaptation to the environment in several aspects, including health, strength, aggressiveness, aesthetic qualities, adaptation to food supplies, and so much more.

Everybody who is thinking about answering Thork in this thread should remember that he just does not want to talk Evolution in a thread about Evolution. What else should you look for to spot a troll?

 As I read the OP I saw that Pongo still uses the RE map and argues according to that. Why isn't anyone projected these migration paths to the FE map? Then it would be clear than the migration paths are not actually the shortest paths but there are shorter paths yet which the birds could take. And in short all argument relies on the personification of the birds. Like the humans the birds would want to take the absolute shortest path between the two points. If it would be true then maybe the birds flying long distances would learned on RE to fly along the chord, not the circle line. It's kind of weird to assign to the birds the need to take shortest path possible. And if you look at the migration altitudes then there are every kind of altitudes. Starting with 1000 feet and up to 30 000 feet.
 Also, if you look for more bird migration paths then they are not so straight. And there is article about Arctic tern's migration from pole to pole(also not in the straight path) where at the end of the article is:

"They make a detour of several thousand km but once we start comparing the route to the prevailing wind system, it makes perfect sense - moving in a counter-clockwise direction in the Southern Hemisphere, and clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere.
"It's just more energy-efficient for them to do that even though they are travelling several thousand more km than if they flew in a straight line."

 In short, birds don't take the shortest path between the two points.

Quote from: Thork on October 27, 2010, 12:38:28 PM

And the crux of this debate has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is Pongo's FE side of the story. The answer lies in aerodynamics for RE. Flying high has advantages of its own. That's why airliners fly at 30,000 ft.

How can a thread called "How Evolution Proves a Flat Earth" not be about Evolution?

You can argue the side you choose, but the only sides are either "yes, this is the evolutionary process that would work differently and this is why" or "no, there are no evolutionary processes that would clearly work differently on one model compared to the other, and this is why your example fails".

Dr. Logic, among others, has made the valid point that a 0.16% difference in distance has no effect at all in evolutionary processes, and you did not argue against that, you just started a shouting contest with ClockTower.

You can easily see that lions that are 0.16% faster or with 0.16% more endurance do not have a significant advantage that translates into them being the ones with most offspring. Darwin himself saw that stronger birds sometimes have the evolutionary advantage and sometimes not. Evolution is not about a single ability, it is about the overall adaptation to the environment in several aspects, including health, strength, aggressiveness, aesthetic qualities, adaptation to food supplies, and so much more.

Everybody who is thinking about answering Thork in this thread should remember that he just does not want to talk Evolution in a thread about Evolution. What else should you look for to spot a troll?

I think you have missed the point. Pongo, God bless him, threw you a curve ball. He suggested the reason that birds fly high was an evolutionary response to the distances they cover and that the explanation of that was that a FE earth covered a smaller distance, RE would contradict evolutionary progress in this way, because of the extra distance incurred by flying a larger circle.
Now had I been arguing for RE, I would have stated that flying high is an advantage in itself and used a quick bit of maths to cement the point of view. TAS at altitude makes your groundspeed higher. Therefore they do not fly high because evolution has dictated they should because of the shape of the earth at all. It is nothing to do with earth's shape. It is to do with aerodynamics. Bam, 26 pages saved.

Quote from: Kasroa Is Gone on October 27, 2010, 10:55:33 AM

I can't even follow what everyone is arguing for or against in this thread. My best guess is that some people are saying something along the lines of "birds fly too high for the world to be round because if it were round they would fly lower in order to decrease distance flown, ergo the Earth is flat" and others are saying "the increase in distance is negligible so the world could still be round"

My side is FE. Pongo provided the solution for FE. It is the round earthers job to say the reason they fly higher is the advantages gained in TAS at altitude. If I argue both sides of a debate in every thread, not only will I become schizophrenic, it then becomes a monologue of my mind. Not a debate.

And the crux of this debate has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is Pongo's FE side of the story. The answer lies in aerodynamics for RE. Flying high has advantages of its own. That's why airliners fly at 30,000 ft.

Can I say first not to use obscure aviation abbreviations that I then have to go and Google to find the meaning of? Congrats for knowing them and everything but we're not all pilots.

I don't want you to argue both sides, my request was not solely aimed at you although earlier it was and you flat out ignored or pretended not to understand what I was saying and just repeated yourself. Besides, I've seen many good reasons already given for their high altitude flight, you just keep going back to the original flawed argument that has no qualitative value.
 
How can the crux of this debate have to do with anything other than evolution. It is evolution that shapes the bird and gives them their aerodynamic properties. That was such a silly thing to say. The fact that the ironic twist of the thread is that evolution contradicts the original post is just a coincidence.

Apologies. TAS = True Air Speed.

Well I think the point is that it has nothing to do with earth's shape flat or round. Once that is established, its the end of Pongo's hypothesis isn't it?

Granted evolution does dictate the bird's aerodynamic properties. Geese will have a 'high-speed' wing (comparably to other birds) to help them fly high for example. Flying high increases stall speed so you need to go faster.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stall_(flight)

But to say evolution played a part in the choice of altitude because of earth's shape is incorrect. All long distance birds will benefit from flying high. Earth's shape played no part in the evolution of birds flying high. it is for that reason I don't think evolution would have been the subject of this thread. Aerodynamics discounts it. Evolution was just Pongo's clever veil of deceit in the OP. 

"Evolution" is indeed a good attention grabber. If nothing else, at least we can all agree that the world is quite flat.

@ClockTower:
"Disputed" and "refuted" do not mean the same thing. Now, I could use this oppertunity to gloat and rub it in your face. However, I will take the high road and choose not to do that. Partly because I have many spelling errors and doing so would open me to a repost, but mostly because there is plently of ClockTower-hate going around as it is and eveyone else is doing a fantastic job at it. Keep up the good work FES!

Yeah sorry Pongo. The thread had just degenerated into we must all be trolls because they can't disprove Pongo. It had a good run. 27 pages is a hell of a thread.

If nothing else, at least we can all agree that the world is quite flat.

+1 

because they can't disprove Pongo.

Again, how to you disprove something that hasn't been proven? Or is it FE thing that someone thinks something up and it is by default proven without any evidence and others must disprove it then? If you just read the OP then there isn't anything proven and Pongo itself can't actually elaborate more into his original speculations. He just assumes somehow that birds want to take the shortest route. And plays with that even when it is not true.

In FE it is still disadvantageous to fly high, according to pongo's logic.
Evolution would have all the birds flying really low, but they don't, so I conclude that
1. evolution is wrong, and since the premise assumes evolution is correct, the argument fails.
2. The birds fly high because it gives them some other advantage to compensate for the extra energy spent. Therefore, RE does not contradict evolution, because it's unrelated.

Quote from: Thork on October 27, 2010, 12:38:28 PM

And the crux of this debate has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is Pongo's FE side of the story. The answer lies in aerodynamics for RE. Flying high has advantages of its own. That's why airliners fly at 30,000 ft.

How can a thread called "How Evolution Proves a Flat Earth" not be about Evolution?

You can argue the side you choose, but the only sides are either "yes, this is the evolutionary process that would work differently and this is why" or "no, there are no evolutionary processes that would clearly work differently on one model compared to the other, and this is why your example fails".

Dr. Logic, among others, has made the valid point that a 0.16% difference in distance has no effect at all in evolutionary processes, and you did not argue against that, you just started a shouting contest with ClockTower.

You can easily see that lions that are 0.16% faster or with 0.16% more endurance do not have a significant advantage that translates into them being the ones with most offspring. Darwin himself saw that stronger birds sometimes have the evolutionary advantage and sometimes not. Evolution is not about a single ability, it is about the overall adaptation to the environment in several aspects, including health, strength, aggressiveness, aesthetic qualities, adaptation to food supplies, and so much more.

Everybody who is thinking about answering Thork in this thread should remember that he just does not want to talk Evolution in a thread about Evolution. What else should you look for to spot a troll?

Very well said. Kudos.

"Evolution" is indeed a good attention grabber. If nothing else, at least we can all agree that the world is quite flat.

@ClockTower:
"Disputed" and "refuted" do not mean the same thing. Now, I could use this oppertunity to gloat and rub it in your face. However, I will take the high road and choose not to do that. Partly because I have many spelling errors and doing so would open me to a repost, but mostly because there is plently of ClockTower-hate going around as it is and eveyone else is doing a fantastic job at it. Keep up the good work FES!

No, we do not agree.

Who said that they meant the same thing? Are you having trouble reading?

I'm thrilled that you think that there's plenty of ClockTower hate going around. When FEers lose debate after debate, they have to grab hold of emotional appeals as a last resort.

Evolution was just Pongo's clever veil of deceit in the OP.

Even Thork call Pongo a liar. Why I am not surprised?

ClockTower... Are you seriously?  You called refuted and disputed synonyms just last page. Do I need to quote it for you?  It's there, I just checked.

ClockTower... Are you seriously?  You called refuted and disputed synonyms just last page. Do I need to quote it for you?  It's there, I just checked.

Are you under the misconception that 'synonyms' and 'mean the same thing' mean the same thing?

I think you have missed the point. Pongo, God bless him, threw you a curve ball. He suggested the reason that birds fly high was an evolutionary response to the distances they cover and that the explanation of that was that a FE earth covered a smaller distance, RE would contradict evolutionary progress in this way, because of the extra distance incurred by flying a larger circle.
Now had I been arguing for RE, I would have stated that flying high is an advantage in itself and used a quick bit of maths to cement the point of view. TAS at altitude makes your groundspeed higher. Therefore they do not fly high because evolution has dictated they should because of the shape of the earth at all. It is nothing to do with earth's shape. It is to do with aerodynamics. Bam, 26 pages saved.

You are not saying anything that has not been said several times before.

Pongo threw an OP that was so incredibly stupid that nobody could resist the temptation to debunk it, so we have gotten a 26 page long trolling thread.

So, for the slow to understand, here it is: the longer path that birds have to take because Earth is round is so insignificant that it is no argument at all. Evolution has had an effect in birds learning the migration paths they now use, and nobody has shown any correlation between the evolutionary path of birds and Earth's shape. Therefore the OP is totally wrong because Evolution does not prove a flat Earth.

Please address the following, Thork/Pongo.

However most bird migration is in the range of 150 m (500 ft) to 600 m (2000 ft). Bird-hit aviation records from the United States show most collisions occur below 600 m (2000 ft) and almost none above 1800 m (6000 ft).

The most significant influence on the altitude at which birds fly is the weather, especially cloud cover and wind fields. Birds may fly lower when it is cloudy or, if the overcast is not too thick, they may ascend through it to reach the clear skies above. If favorable tail winds are to be found in certain altitudinal strata, birds often ascend or descend in order to take advantage of them.

with most migrations in the range of 500-2000 feet

Weather and species of bird all play a role.  More food for thought:

Seabirds fly low over water but gain altitude when crossing land, and the reverse pattern is seen in landbirds

Even more food for thought:

Birds exploit the winds to their favour so they can go the distance by burning minimal fuel. They may shift altitude to find the best wind "conveyor belt". Winds at high altitude may blow in the opposite direction from wind on the ground, and usually are blowing strongly. Larger birds rely on thermals (hot air) rising from the ground in the mornings to gain altitude by simply soaring. These birds usually migrate during the day. They may also follow strong updrafts along ridges.

Do you want another penguin? The point is the FE distance is shorter. For RE they must fly further at altitude. so it negates the reason to do so. But my example birds choose 6,500ft. If you have a point to make, make it. I am tired of giving you the same evidence dressed up in different ways so you can understand it.

My point is that birds migrate at varying altitudes (low and) to ride thermals, (possibly) avoid predators, depending on the weather, etc.  Reference the many quotes I've provided you.

And since birds migrate even lower than I orginally thought, the distance that birds save migrating at ground level over their normal migratory paths is closer to .01-1%.

And since birds migrate even lower than I orginally thought, the distance that birds save migrating at ground level over their normal migratory paths is closer to .01-1%.

  Before someone comes and claims that the birds somehow "want to save some distance" they must prove that birds really want that. In my opinion they don't care even if their traveling distance is some hundreds of kilometers longer.

Quote from: Thork on October 27, 2010, 02:07:17 PM

Evolution was just Pongo's clever veil of deceit in the OP.

Even Thork called Pongo a liar. Why I am not surprised?

You chide us for taking personal stabs at you while, on the very same page no less, you try and correct others spelling and grammar. That's fine with me, if you cannot argue the topics at hand, I don't mind so much that you derail to spelling. However, you must make damn sure your spelling and grammar is 100% or else you look retarted. Also, "seriously" wasn't mispelled, lrn2meme.

Quote from: Hessy on October 28, 2010, 09:48:30 AM

And since birds migrate even lower than I orginally thought, the distance that birds save migrating at ground level over their normal migratory paths is closer to .01-1%.

  Before someone comes and claims that the birds somehow "want to save some distance" they must prove that birds really want that. In my opinion they don't care even if their traveling distance is some hundreds of kilometers longer.

Birds know distance formula. This in addition to use of basic sextants has allowed them to maximize the efficiency of their routes.  In fact, man first gained knowledge of a^2+b^2=c^2 by eating storks. It wasn't until thousands of years later when the concept of variables was conceived that this knowledge came to be useful.

How do they know the formula? There aren't any bird schools. Is a sextant another sort of bird? Is the stork thing a joke?
I'd like to think the birds can do this, as it would make more sense. You sound like you know a lot about birds. Do you work with animals?

Do you work with animals?

You could say that. Although I'm now banned from the Boise Zoo, and I'm required to tell you I'm a registered sex offender.