How Evolution Proves a Flat Earth

Quote from: James on May 13, 2010, 05:06:24 PM

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 13, 2010, 12:59:53 PM

Birds fly based on their internal electromagnetic compass, Not their advanced knowledge non-euclidean geometer. Evolution is not goal oriented, it takes what is there, and the better traits survive and have offspring. /thread

What are you talking about? Of course evolution is goal oriented. It aims at producing the most survivable species in a given context, as you basically just said!

But it doesn't go hurr lets make this guy here stand on two legs so he has free hands.

That would be a goal.


What happens is

Hurr, this guy is using his hands a lot, after a few thousand generations and mutations, their species leg muscles and bone structure might change so that his hands are completely free.


Not goal orientated.

What you have described is a teleological system - one which tends towards an identifiable goal.

I guessed you missed the part where I showed that the OP's argument does not offer any evidence for (or even against) flat earth.

What are you talking about? Of course evolution is goal oriented. It aims at producing the most survivable species in a given context, as you basically just said!

Evolution isn't goal-oriented.  It's merely that certain mutations are more beneficial in certain contexts than others.  Take why cooked meat tastes better than raw flesh, for example.  People who ate less-cooked meat had greater health risks from bacteria in the food--whereas people who cooked their food killed much of the bacteria before consuming it.  People who more enjoyed the taste of cooked than raw had a greater chance of surviving to the age of passing on their genes.

This is also why fats and sugars taste good.  If people had mutations that caused fats and sugars to taste terrible (making them avoid foods containing those things) they wouldn't have lived very long.  Only people who liked (and sought out) foods with those things lived through numerous successive generations.

If it were goal-oriented, then a goal might be "fats and sugars are rare but useful, so let's make them taste good so people seek them out," but that isn't the case.  It's more like random mutations causing certain tastes to be more/less enjoyable, and whoever survives long enough to pass on their genes will pass on those mutations.  After many generations of survivors, only useful things end up tasting good.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 13, 2010, 12:59:53 PM

Birds fly based on their internal electromagnetic compass, Not their advanced knowledge non-euclidean geometer. Evolution is not goal oriented, it takes what is there, and the better traits survive and have offspring. /thread

What are you talking about? Of course evolution is goal oriented. It aims at producing the most survivable species in a given context, as you basically just said!

So Can I quote you that you think evolution is goal oriented?
the College board and the worlds biology majors would like to have a word with you.
look at pg. 16 http://teachers.sduhsd.k12.ca.us/lolson/AP%20Biology/Powerpoint%20files/22.25Evolution/49Ch24speciation2004b.pdf
plz lrn2highshoolbiology, the concept that evolution is not goal oriented is a key concept. Evolution isn't some predetermined or organized force. It is simply that a) genes allow heritable traits to be passed through generations. b) new genotypes can occur due to mutation. and c) alleles that are linked with increased biological fitness are more likely to become more abundant in a given population. Aka no blueprint saying "birds have to fly in the most efficient way possible". In fact one of the questions on my AP prep exam was something like: why did evolution lead to the avian wing if designs such as airfoils are more efficient at achieving flight?

Quote from: James on May 13, 2010, 05:06:24 PM

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 13, 2010, 12:59:53 PM

Birds fly based on their internal electromagnetic compass, Not their advanced knowledge non-euclidean geometer. Evolution is not goal oriented, it takes what is there, and the better traits survive and have offspring. /thread

What are you talking about? Of course evolution is goal oriented. It aims at producing the most survivable species in a given context, as you basically just said!

So Can I quote you that you think evolution is goal oriented?
the College board and the worlds biology majors would like to have a word with you.
look at pg. 16 http://teachers.sduhsd.k12.ca.us/lolson/AP%20Biology/Powerpoint%20files/22.25Evolution/49Ch24speciation2004b.pdf
plz lrn2highshoolbiology, the concept that evolution is not goal oriented is a key concept. Evolution isn't some predetermined or organized force. It is simply that a) genes allow heritable traits to be passed through generations. b) new genotypes can occur due to mutation. and c) alleles that are linked with increased biological fitness are more likely to become more abundant in a given population. Aka no blueprint saying "birds have to fly in the most efficient way possible". In fact one of the questions on my AP prep exam was something like: why did evolution lead to the avian wing if designs such as airfoils are more efficient at achieving flight?

It not being goal orientated mostly has to do with complexity.  There is no final "goal" but there is the short-term goal of greater survivability that is true across the board.  To be more correct, the goal of having your offspring reproduce successfully and "mate" and theirs do the same.  Obviously no one is claiming in the long term all birds should look the same and be ideal creatures or that all creatures will eventually be birds.

I suggest you learn the content instead of memorizing multiple choice questions for your globularist brainwashing courses.

Why do birds fly high?
http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/migratio/altitude.htm
http://www.garden-birds.co.uk/information/migration.htm

Thread? Disproved.

Next you'll be arguing that rain drops prove a flat earth

Why do birds fly high?
http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/migratio/altitude.htm
http://www.garden-birds.co.uk/information/migration.htm

Thread? Disproved.

So because somebody else has a different idea, Pongo's hypothesis is automatically wrong?

I'd rather go with someone educated on the subject as opposed to someone who isn't.

I'd rather go with someone educated on the subject as opposed to someone who isn't.

That's a very different statement to the thread being "disproved".

Quote from: Catchpa on May 15, 2010, 04:59:08 AM

Why do birds fly high?
http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/migratio/altitude.htm
http://www.garden-birds.co.uk/information/migration.htm

Thread? Disproved.

So because somebody else has a different idea, Pongo's hypothesis is automatically wrong?

Doesn't have to.
It atleast proves that this isn't proof of a flat earth.

Doesn't have to.
It atleast proves that this isn't proof of a flat earth.

Actually, it lends support to Pongo's idea. From Catchpa's first link:

Bar-headed Geese have been observed flying over the highest peaks (29,000+ feet) even though a 10,000-foot pass was nearby.

Why would they be flying nearly 200% higher than they need to if it would lengthen the horizontal distance they need to travel? Evolution doesn't waste resources needlessly.

It doesn't?
Look up a vestigal structure.

Also,its probably not wasting it needlessly.
As mentioned afterwards:

t has been hypothesized that advantageous tail winds of greater velocity are found higher up and that the cooler air minimizes the demand for evaporative water loss to regulate body temperature under the exertion of flight.

It doesn't?
Look up a vestigal structure.

Apparently there is no such thing as a vestigal structure. However, you may want to look up "spelling".

Also,its probably not wasting it needlessly.
As mentioned afterwards:

Quote

t has been hypothesized that advantageous tail winds of greater velocity are found higher up and that the cooler air minimizes the demand for evaporative water loss to regulate body temperature under the exertion of flight.

Is there any evidence for this claim? If not, I could say that they fly higher because they're trying to find the Flying Spaghetti Monster and I'd have equal credibility.

Not really equal credibility. Neither you, nor Pongo, nor any of us seem to be educated on the subject. You see, as contrary to many FE'ers, most RE'er believe things are more complex than just writing a bunch of paragraf and have James claim them as "a panel of experts."

Not really equal credibility. Neither you, nor Pongo, nor any of us seem to be educated on the subject. You see, as contrary to many FE'ers, most RE'er believe things are more complex than just writing a bunch of paragraf and have James claim them as "a panel of experts."

An unsubstantiated claim by an educated person is still an unsubstantiated claim.

Quote from: The Question1 on May 15, 2010, 05:56:05 AM

It doesn't?
Look up a vestigal structure.

Apparently there is no such thing as a vestigal structure. However, you may want to look up "spelling".

Or,instead or responding to the spelling you can respond to the argument.

Or,instead or responding to the spelling you can respond to the argument.

There's no such thing as a vestigal structure. Therefore, you had no argument.

Quote from: The Question1 on May 15, 2010, 06:43:08 AM

Or,instead or responding to the spelling you can respond to the argument.

There's no such thing as a vestigal structure. Therefore, you had no argument.

Thats incredibly pendantic.
Vestigial structures don't serve much of a purpose.

Vestigial structures don't serve much of a purpose.

They did at one point, which is why they were evolved. The fact that they have now fallen into disuse doesn't mean their evolution was wasted.

Thats incredibly pendant.

Do you mean "That's incredibly pedantic."?

Quote from: The Question1 on May 15, 2010, 08:13:31 AM

Vestigial structures don't serve much of a purpose.

They did at one point, which is why they were evolved. The fact that they have now fallen into disuse doesn't mean their evolution was wasted.

So if they have fallen into disuse,then why do they still appear?

So if they have fallen into disuse,then why do they still appear?

That's like asking why your car's engine doesn't magically vanish when you switch off the ignition. The portions of the genetic code and/or the embryonic environment which develop these parts of the body don't suddenly disappear just because the organs are no longer used.

Quote from: The Question1 on May 15, 2010, 08:27:42 AM

So if they have fallen into disuse,then why do they still appear?

That's like asking why your car's engine doesn't magically vanish when you switch off the ignition. The portions of the genetic code and/or the embryonic environment which develop these parts of the body don't suddenly disappear just because the organs are no longer used.

I was under the impression that genes could still be there,just turned off.Like how we have the gene for hibernation but don't hibernate.

I was under the impression that genes could still be there,just turned off.Like how we have the gene for hibernation but don't hibernate.

Some of them can be, but they don't magically to know to get turned off just because what they code for isn't used.

I was under the impression that genes could still be there,just turned off.Like how we have the gene for hibernation but don't hibernate.

Think of them as stepping stones.  Except sometimes you turn around and pick up your previous stone to carry with you.

Nobody in this thread seems to be a bird watcher at all. The simple reason behind the evolution of the way migratory birds fly is in the wind patterns, not in a theoretical reduction of a few meters in the total length of a 10000 km migration.

Winds close to the ground or large bodies of water are highly unstable and their average velocity is close to zero, since they blow in one direction half the time and in the opposite direction half the time. But wind current high above the ground are stable, fast and blow in the same direction every autumn or spring, Therefore, a bird that reaches a seasonal wind current will travel hundreds of kilometers with just an occasional batting of his wings.

Anyone who has flown a kite knows that making it fly a few meters above Earth is very hard, but as soon as it reaches some 20 meters of altitude or so, it becomes stable and pulls hard on the string.

If birds were as intelligent as Pongo, they would fly close to the ground, saving a few meters of total journey length but having to flap their wings like crazy all the time. Wonder who is more intelligent: the birds, or Pongo?

Birds flying high proves absolutely nothing.

Another win for RES!

Winds close to the ground or large bodies of water are highly unstable and their average velocity is close to zero, since they blow in one direction half the time and in the opposite direction half the time. But wind current high above the ground are stable, fast and blow in the same direction every autumn or spring, Therefore, a bird that reaches a seasonal wind current will travel hundreds of kilometers with just an occasional batting of his wings.

Do you have any data to support this?

Quote from: trig on May 15, 2010, 03:40:29 PM

Winds close to the ground or large bodies of water are highly unstable and their average velocity is close to zero, since they blow in one direction half the time and in the opposite direction half the time. But wind current high above the ground are stable, fast and blow in the same direction every autumn or spring, Therefore, a bird that reaches a seasonal wind current will travel hundreds of kilometers with just an occasional batting of his wings.

Do you have any data to support this?

Now, I am starting to understand your trouble with the world. You never flew a kite, you never watched the birds migrate. Your childhood has not finished! Of course you are not a civil engineer, since they learn about the increasing wind speed with altitude in their first Static Mechanics course. Even if you were an occasional viewer of the Discovery Channel, or the History Channel, or National Geographic Channel, they explain some details about high rise buildings.

I will not dignify your lack of will to do your own research with an extensive study on bird migration. Just to wet your appetite, http://whyfiles.org/006migration/ tells you how Monarch Butterflies manage to do their migration with such a small energy capacity.

But the best thing you can do is go, fly a kite! Learn by yourself a few facts about the world you live in, instead of declaring that somewhere in the books lies the clue to a Flat Earth, and a Flat Earth Conspiracy!

Quote from: trig on May 15, 2010, 03:40:29 PM

Winds close to the ground or large bodies of water are highly unstable and their average velocity is close to zero, since they blow in one direction half the time and in the opposite direction half the time. But wind current high above the ground are stable, fast and blow in the same direction every autumn or spring, Therefore, a bird that reaches a seasonal wind current will travel hundreds of kilometers with just an occasional batting of his wings.

Do you have any data to support this?

Do you ever have any data to support anything?