Evolution (Introduction)

by David Turell , Wednesday, July 22, 2009, 20:43 (5399 days ago) @ George Jelliss

DT: How do you get from no wings to wings by Darwin's theory? - From the pharyngujla website: 
"The question is how insect wings evolved. Wings are a classic issue in evolution, because they aren't going to function for flight at all until they've achieved a certain minimal size—half a wing isn't any good at all for getting an animal in the air, so any explanation for their selective evolution has to incorporate alternative functions: as stabilizers for cursorial animals, for instance, or traps for catching small prey on the run." - The quote is supposition. You see, any just-so story will fill in the evolutionary gaps. The fossil gaps are there and we don't have the fossils to show itty-bitty steps, just as in the whales below, and your just-so story about birds immediately below.
 
> You are getting to sound more and more like a creationist! It seems perfectly possible to get from no wings to wings in small steps. In the case of wings on birds it is evident from the bone structure that they developed from limbs and hands. Flight with flapping wings can be reached via a gliding stage. - 'Can be' is not proof.
 
> In the case of the whale evolution we were discussing earlier. I don't see where your "macro-evolution" is necessary. The processes involved are smooth transformations like stretching or contracting or deforming. There is no evidence for any part of this process happening suddenly. - Nor is there any evidence of this happening slowly. - My answer to both pargraphs above is the same. There are fossil gaps, so we cannot answer the question of whether there are the tiny steps always or are there occasions for giant steps. I don't know. I can't answer that question from the evidence we have presented to us. We do not know if Darwin'as proposal in true or not. You want to believe in it with no evidence, just theory. I want evidence. Yesterday I presented a paper that defined three species of horned toad on good evidence: genetic, morphologic, and environmental. Fine paper. Good proof. That is all I am asking, and I admit that with the proper evidence Darwin will be proven correct. But not so far.