# Sure, This Can Only Be Explained By Evolution



## sitarro (Jun 19, 2009)

The operation of this incredible machine, at over 70 wing movements a second, make the evolutionary theory seem silly.......... are we really suppose to believe this extremely efficent design was just an accident?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8vjYTXgIJw&feature=channel]YouTube - Time Warp: Hummingbird[/ame]


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jun 19, 2009)

It's not an "accident," but rather tiny genetic mutations that accumulate over generations to produce new traits, and processes that make these variations more common or rare [i.e. natural selection]. 

It's just science.


----------



## sitarro (Jun 19, 2009)

Epsilon Delta said:


> It's not an "accident," but rather tiny genetic mutations that accumulate over generations to produce new traits, and processes that make these variations more common or rare [i.e. natural selection].
> 
> It's just science.



I'm a designer, you'll need to do better than "it's science". "Science" has been proven wrong continually since the first "scientists" barfed up their ideas about whatever they studied. Why would this bird need to "evolve" to just drink from particular flowers that needed the abilities it's capable of, why not just feed from flowers that were easier to access. Why would this bird evolve this far and yet a shark hasn't changed much since it's original design. We are suppose to buy that this incredible bird started as a spark in the primordial ooze.


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jun 19, 2009)

Hummingbirds and flowers are funny because they co-evolve- variations in the flowers caused variations in the birds and vice-versa, mutualism resulting from the bird's need for food and the plant's need for pollination. As for "this bird evolve this far" vis-a-vis the shark, that's kind of a silly claim. By what criteria is one more evolved than the other? Sharks emerged on the earth 420 million years ago and were very different, eventually evolving into the sharks we know today, most of which have been around for 100 million years. The notion that sharks "are the same as their original design" is a popular misconception.

Anyway, what's your take? "_Somebody_ *hint hint*  had to design it, a superpowerful being!" Well, that's great. I don't care. Maybe some higher power did design everything. But whatever that higher power "designed", we call it evolution.


----------



## WillowTree (Jun 19, 2009)

Someday, if you have time pick up a copy of "Shadows of  Forgotten Ancestors." Carl Sagan.. I thought it a very thought provoking book.



Sagan and Druyan argue that territoriality, xenophobia, ethnocentrism, occasional outbreeding and a preference for small, semi-isolated groups are elements in a survival strategy common to many species, including Homo sapiens. They assert that society's problems increasingly demand global solutions and require a dramatic, strategic shift which the authors believe humankind is capable of achieving. The authors discuss the evolution of Earth's atmosphere and life forms, the genetic code, and the advantages of sexual reproduction. The final third of the book deals chimpanzees, baboons and apes, with the authors finding the social lives of these primates "hauntingly familiar" to the lives of humans with their dominance hierarchy, combat, suppression of females and chimps' remarkable ability to communicate through symbols.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadows_of_Forgotten_Ancestors_(book)


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jun 19, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> Someday, if you have time pick up a copy of "Shadows of  Forgotten Ancestors." Carl Sagan.. I thought it a very thought provoking book.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Haha, that's crazy willow, I was about to quote our post and quote the wiki on it, but then you put it in your post. Got me confused for a second.

Anyway, it looks like a really interesting read. I'll try to find it. Thanks for the suggestion.


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 19, 2009)

sitarro said:


> The operation of this incredible machine, at over 70 wing movements a second, make the evolutionary theory seem silly.......... are we really suppose to believe this extremely efficent design was just an accident?



Your ignorance is astounding, The moment you said 'accident', any hint of credibility was lost




sitarro said:


> I'm a designer,



You are proof that a designer need not be intelligent. I hereby forward the Retarded Designer Hypothesis



> . "Science" has been proven wrong continually since the first "scientists" barfed up their ideas about whatever they studied.



You're a fucking idiot. 'Science' has never been 'proven wrong'



> Why would this bird need to



Who said anything about a 'need'


> "evolve" to just drink from particular flowers that needed the abilities it's capable of



Who said the flowers were like that to begin with?



> , why not just feed from flowers that were easier to access.



These bird seems to find these flowers plenty easy to access- oh, not to mention that only ignorant fools like you try to read 'motivation' or desire into genetic drift and mutation.



> Why would this bird evolve this far



1- There is no why'
2-'this far'? You have no idea what you're talking about.



> and yet a shark hasn't changed much since it's original design



1-Do tell what the shark's 'original design' was and prove it
2-You're presupposing design- because you're an idiot

.





> We are suppose to buy that this incredible bird started as a spark in the primordial ooze.



Who said a bird was electricity. try going to school or reading a science book inste4ad of getting your information regarding sciece from the bible and tract Society


----------



## WillowTree (Jun 19, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> sitarro said:
> 
> 
> > The operation of this incredible machine, at over 70 wing movements a second, make the evolutionary theory seem silly.......... are we really suppose to believe this extremely efficent design was just an accident?
> ...






you sound like the idiot! Isn't there room for discussion?


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 19, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> you sound like the idiot!



Actually, I'm the smart one correcting the IDiot



> Isn't there room for discussion?



intelligent discussion, sure. the retarded talking points in the OP, no.


----------



## WillowTree (Jun 19, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > you sound like the idiot!
> ...



well, since he started the discussion and you don't think there's room for discussion just name calling I'd say you still win the "idiot" prize!


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 19, 2009)

seeing as I tore apart the IDiot's moronic assertions and ignorant talking point... 


Notice no attempt to defend the OP's ignorance- only attacks upon the Harbinger


----------



## sitarro (Jun 19, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> sitarro said:
> 
> 
> > The operation of this incredible machine, at over 70 wing movements a second, make the evolutionary theory seem silly.......... are we really suppose to believe this extremely efficent design was just an accident?
> ...



Wow, did I hit a nerve badass? I'm not particularly religious and I have never read the bible, the first paragraph put me to sleep. I do question dickheads that put a ridiculous amount of trust in everything put out by anybody that calls themselves a scientist. This type of ultra slow motion photography is fairly recent and I'm sure it's use has disproved many theories by your science gods. 

As for your assumptions about me, are you a "scientist", your theories are about as accurate as many I have met ...... tool.


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 19, 2009)

sitarro said:


> his type of ultra slow motion photography is fairly recent and I'm sure it's use has disproved many theories by your science gods.




I'm amazed anyone can be as stupid as you are


----------



## sitarro (Jun 19, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > you sound like the idiot!
> ...



Retarded talking points........ which are they, how many points are you talking about? Is the speed of beats "retarded"? Extremely efficient design, is that a "retarded" statement? Evolutionary theory........ is it not a theory or has somebody come out with absolute proof?

Curious assholes looking for public funding for their "studies" aren't gods ace, they are just people doing a job and trying to make a living. Many are happy to stretch the truth of what they report in order to get more funding........ talk to your hero Al Gore, he knows their names by heart.


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 19, 2009)

> Extremely efficient design,



again, you presuppose design without evidence

you're being dishonest


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 19, 2009)

> alk to your hero Al Gore, he knows their names by heart.




That's one of the dumbest fucking posts on USMB


----------



## WillowTree (Jun 19, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> seeing as I tore apart the IDiot's moronic assertions and ignorant talking point...
> 
> 
> Notice no attempt to defend the OP's ignorance- only attacks upon the Harbinger



that's because it's not about attack..it's about learning what the other guy thinks and why.


----------



## WillowTree (Jun 19, 2009)

sitarro said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > sitarro said:
> ...






did you happen to see that video Chamelon that I posted?? This blows my mind.


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMT1FLzEn9I[/ame]


----------



## code1211 (Jun 19, 2009)

sitarro said:


> The operation of this incredible machine, at over 70 wing movements a second, make the evolutionary theory seem silly.......... are we really suppose to believe this extremely efficent design was just an accident?
> 
> YouTube - Time Warp: Hummingbird



Accident is not the right word.  Accident implies that there was some kind of a plan.  There is no plan.  It is just something that happened.  While this "incredible machine" survived, the flightless Dodo walked into extinction.

Millions of "incredible machines" are now extinct.  Not an accident or a plan.  It's just nature doing what nature does.  It changes.  What changes with it in some ways leads to a superior ability to cope while other changes lead to an inferior ability to cope.

No plan.  No accidents.  No mistakes.  No design.  Just a brutal and remorseless progression of events that leave some standing and some fallen.


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI (Jun 19, 2009)

Humming birds become the substitute for the watch. If there is a watch, there must be a watch MAKER. A superb  cosmic designer. A supreme being. I remember asking my Sunday school teacher many many years ago : Who MADE god, then?


----------



## WillowTree (Jun 19, 2009)

Look closely at the Pelican. Dosen't he remind you of a taradacytal?


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 19, 2009)

Anyone read The Blind Watchmaker?


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI (Jun 19, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Anyone read The Blind Watchmaker?



Nope. Sorry.  Perhaps this thread is on the wrong board. But, huming birds, and little kids and flowers make for great pic's.  God is in the eye of the beholder, perhaps.


----------



## Ralph (Jun 19, 2009)

Epsilon Delta said:


> It's not an "accident," but rather tiny genetic mutations that accumulate over generations to produce new traits, and processes that make these variations more common or rare [i.e. natural selection].
> 
> It's just science.



First PHYSICAL SCIENCE must prove that "mutations" can add unto an existing strain of DNA and not cause negative mutations (deformities within an existing species), which TAKES away from the existing DNA instead of ADDING any viable superior addition.  Horizontal evolution ( or side ways evolution...WITHIN THE SAME SPECIES) is a product of existing DNA strains that are dormant and called upon when the species needs to adapt to its natural surroundings.  Such as is observed by a moth that changes colors to adapt to its surroundings, or the male breasts found on the species of man....useless but there because the DNA strain contained shared traits of the female...WITHIN THAT SPECIES.   

Physical Science has never came close to proving Vertical Evolution....the breaching of the scientific law of Biogenesis where life is proven to propagate life...ONLY in the confines of the same species.  Biogenesis is a Law of Physical Science because it is OBSERVED and REPEATED in nature on a daily basis, where as LIFE has never been proven to come from COMMON DESCENT, first having evolved  from DEAD NON-LIVING matter. (Spontaneous Generation)  In the entirety of history there has never been an OBSERVED example of LIFE coming from DEAD MATTER.   

Simply finding ONE sample of a never before found fossil does not prove this example of a single fossil  has evolved from anything, it simply means this is the ONLY sample of that particular life form to have been found.....as of the date of that first discovery.   Its all but laughable when an example of a DEFORMED creature is presented as SUPPOSED prove of evolution....like finding a deformed flounder caused by negative mutation of genes...and falsely propagating such as A MISSION LINK.  

Such intellectual dishonesty is exampled by the  LIVING FOSSIL labeled by the theoretical philosophers as the Coelacanth.  This FISH was being espoused as PROOF that fish evolved legs and moved unto land for years......before a LIVING example of this EVOLVING animal was found still existing in the exact same body that was first propagated as coming from the Cretaceous Period ( ranging from 65 to 144 million years ago), and declared as EXTINCT.     And of course how can anyone forget the HONESTY exampled by the Piltdown Hoax.    

Science is Science and Philosophy is Philosophy...there is nothing wrong with either, as long as the two are not attempted to be morphed together...and that is exactly what the theory of GENERAL EVOLUTION does, it presents philosophical theory dressed in the clothing of Physical Science, as this Theory does not have a Scientific Leg to stand on.  As it propagates an UNPROVABLE message that life is a product of dead matter and that dead matter is the ancestor of man by COMMON descent.   Simply find one example of life having evolved from dead matter....just ONE, there is none, never has been one...but LIFE is exampled every day as being a product of Biogenesis...life propagating life within the same species.   The scientific method of Observed, Reproducible....empirical evidence does not and can not support GENERAL EVOLUTION and COMMON DESCENT 'micro evolution' is a valid and observed fact of physical science this in no fashion proves the theory of MACRO, GENERAL, VERTICAL....EVOLUTION, as the philosophers simply hide behind physical science while propagating theory as TRUTH.


----------



## Toro (Jun 19, 2009)

science > intelligent design


----------



## Toro (Jun 19, 2009)

Ralph said:


> Epsilon Delta said:
> 
> 
> > It's not an "accident," but rather tiny genetic mutations that accumulate over generations to produce new traits, and processes that make these variations more common or rare [i.e. natural selection].
> ...



But we know that the DNA of chimpanzees is very similar to humans. If you assume that horizontal evolution occurs, why not vertical evolution, given that the DNA between humans and chimps is so close?


----------



## KittenKoder (Jun 19, 2009)

I love how idiots on both sides just can't see the very simple explanation:

The creator (whatever the hell you name it or them) created the universe so that it would all work perfectly together, which means, evolution was part of that creation and neither cancels the other out ... they are the same damned thing. Intelligent design = evolution ... duh. 

I am so sick of this argument now, and becoming more bitter toward both die hards on both sides.


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI (Jun 19, 2009)

I like humming birds, really. They hum.  They can fly, what isn't there to like already? God is neither here nor there. So, were DID god come from, anyway? Just shut up, and take pictures. It  doesn&#8217;t matter anyway. No?


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 19, 2009)

Ralph said:


> First PHYSICAL SCIENCE must prove that "mutations" can add unto an existing strain of DNA and not cause negative mutations (deformities within an existing species)



look into 'junk DNA' and 'Endogenous Retroviruses'


> which TAKES away from the existing DNA instead of ADDING any viable superior addition







> .  Horizontal evolution ( or side ways evolution...WITHIN THE SAME SPECIES)


What species evolved to become sideways..

wait, I got it 


> is a product of existing DNA strains that are dormant and called upon when the species needs to adapt to its natural surroundings.



or when mutations occur and spread via genetic drift... or when genes are lost...



> Such as is observed by a moth that changes colors to adapt to its surroundings, or the male breasts found on the species of man....useless but there because the DNA strain contained shared traits of the female...WITHIN THAT SPECIES.



so the nylon-eating bacteria... since nylon didn't exist 'til man made it in 1935, where did the necessary DNA or 'information' come from?



> Physical Science has never came close to proving Vertical Evolution....the breaching of the scientific law of Biogenesis where life is proven to propagate life...ONLY in the confines of the same species



You're playing word games., 'life propogates life only within the same species' is actually wrong, as life can propagate hybrid life

also, barring hybrids, each creature is the same species as the 'parent(s)'- no shit, sherlock. Speciation occurs as progressive changes among one or more populations render those piopulation incapable of interbreeding and propgating one jiond- as they have become two different things.



> .  Biogenesis is a Law of Physical Science because it is OBSERVED and REPEATED in nature on a daily basis, wher.




1)





> *Law of Biogenesis*
> 
> Redi's and Pasteur's findings that life comes from life is referred to as the _law of biogenesis,_ which asserts that modern organisms do not spontaneously arise in nature from non-life.




2)


> (Spontaneous Generation)  In the entirety of history there has never been an OBSERVED example of LIFE coming from DEAD MATTER.



We're no talking about 'sponteneous generation' or even where life originated. Evolution =/= abiogenesis




> Simply finding ONE sample of a never before found fossil does not prove this example of a single fossil  has evolved from anything, it simply means this is the ONLY sample of that particular life form to have been found.....as of the date of that first discovery.   Its all but laughable when an example of a DEFORMED creature



Demonstrate that it is simple 'a deformed creature'


> Such intellectual dishonesty



is rampant throughout your post



> is exampled by the  LIVING FOSS



oxymoron



> IL labeled by the theoretical philosophers as the Coelacanth



has nothing to do with anything- it's simply an example of a successful species



> .  This FISH was being espoused as PROOF that fish evolved legs and moved unto land for years.....



No, it wasn't It was siumply cited as an ancient species of fish


> Science is Science and Philosophy is Philosophy...there is nothing wrong with either, as long as the two are not attempted to be morphed together...and that is exactly what the theory of GENERAL EVOLUTION does,



No, it doesn't, moron.



> it presents philosophical theory dressed in the clothing of Physical Science, as this Theory does not have a Scientific Leg to stand on



Which is why there is no debate at all in the halls of science and fools like you are left shouting in front of churches 



> .  As it propagates an UNPROVABLE message that life is a product of dead matter



No, it doesn't.  Come back when you know what you're talking about.






KittenKoder said:


> I love how idiots on both sides just can't see the very simple explanation:
> 
> The creator (whatever the hell you name it or them) created the universe



-Demonstrate that the universe was 'created'
-Demonstrate the creator exists



> so that it would all work perfectly together


-demonstrate such a motivation by the creator you are to have demonstrated




> , which means, evolution was part of that creation


-prove/demonstrate your assertion


----------



## WillowTree (Jun 20, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> I love how idiots on both sides just can't see the very simple explanation:
> 
> The creator (whatever the hell you name it or them) created the universe so that it would all work perfectly together, which means, evolution was part of that creation and neither cancels the other out ... they are the same damned thing. Intelligent design = evolution ... duh.
> 
> I am so sick of this argument now, and becoming more bitter toward both die hards on both sides.



Take a pill or sumpin!


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 20, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > I love how idiots on both sides just can't see the very simple explanation:
> ...


----------



## xotoxi (Jun 20, 2009)

sitarro said:


> The operation of this incredible machine, at over 70 wing movements a second, make the evolutionary theory seem silly.......... are we really suppose to believe this extremely efficent design was just an accident?
> 
> YouTube - Time Warp: Hummingbird


 
Okay...then lets just say that the Hummingbird was created by God and then move on.


Or better yet...lets say that the Hummingbird was created by _*MAGIC*_!  That's much more exciting because everyone loves *MAGIC*!


----------



## Ralph (Jun 20, 2009)

xotoxi said:


> sitarro said:
> 
> 
> > The operation of this incredible machine, at over 70 wing movements a second, make the evolutionary theory seem silly.......... are we really suppose to believe this extremely efficent design was just an accident?
> ...



Like Naturalism?  Which is propagated as CREATING itself......FROM NOTHING.  Or the magical birth canal of the female?  Which is propagated as defining Human Life, its not human life...and then PRESTO, as soon as the head breaches the birth canal...ITS ALIVE !!!!!    Creation and Intellect Design is a far more plausible conclusion than is NATURALISM, when the Scientific Method is observed.


----------



## xotoxi (Jun 20, 2009)

Ralph said:


> *Creation and Intellect Design is a far more plausible conclusion than is NATURALISM*


 
Why?


----------



## Darkwind (Jul 12, 2009)

Wow.  All of this and no one took the time to just notice how beautiful that little bird is?

That was just plain awesome and some great videography.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jul 12, 2009)

Wow.  Another "this is too complicated to happen by evolution" diatribe.

I guess people had to find something new after Dr. Miller explained the whole bacterial flagella thing.

You guys can believe what you want.  Saying something is "too complicated to have happened without the guidance of some sort of supernatural force" is inherently unscientific and can't fit within the confines of the scientific method (a man-made venture).

Your arguement fails on procedural grounds, not on merit, which can never be addressed by a discipline that limits itself to the natural world.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jul 12, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> you sound like the idiot! Isn't there room for discussion?



There is always room for discussion, but if we are going to discuss science, it would be nice if we could limit ourselves to science and not insert theology, mythology, and philosophy into it.


----------



## Shogun (Jul 13, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> Someday, if you have time pick up a copy of "Shadows of  Forgotten Ancestors." Carl Sagan.. I thought it a very thought provoking book.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



i have that book too. interesting read.


----------



## Shogun (Jul 13, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> Look closely at the Pelican. Dosen't he remind you of a taradacytal?



birds in general.  Scales and feathers don't just HAPPEN to have the same structures.  And, really, bird feet.  bird fucking feet.  bird feet beaks and scales.


----------



## mattskramer (Jul 13, 2009)

sitarro said:


> Epsilon Delta said:
> 
> 
> > It's not an "accident," but rather tiny genetic mutations that accumulate over generations to produce new traits, and processes that make these variations more common or rare [i.e. natural selection].
> ...



Religious ideas about the atmosphere have been proven wrong too. Lightning is not the result of an angry God named Zeus throwing darts at people.  Things do not need a purpose in order for them to exist.  Why does the cockroach exist but just to annoy people?  Why do we have a 5th toe?  Why do men have nipples?  The flower that you mention may exist without the hummingbird.  If the environment was right for a hummingbird but through eons of evolution, the hummingbird did not develop, then there would not be a hummingbird.  On the flip-side, if mutations started to make a hummingbird, but the environment was not conducive to support the hummingbird in the making, then such a hummingbird would not survive.  The mutations have to be right and the environment has to be right.  Some new species do make it  along with the old species.  Also, sometimes unnecessary things survive too.


----------



## sitarro (Jul 13, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> Wow.  Another "this is too complicated to happen by evolution" diatribe.
> 
> I guess people had to find something new after Dr. Miller explained the whole bacterial flagella thing.
> 
> ...



Explain it then asswipe. Why does that bird exist, why does it have to consume nectar rather than seeds? Why is it so small? Why do the wings have to beat at such high speed, why would it have "evolved" with such small wings that need to beat ridiculously fast just to remain airborn? Why can't science explain the abilities of the Bumble Bee? What organs are in a flea, do they have brains? If so, what do they think about?


----------



## JBeukema (Jul 13, 2009)

sitarro said:


> Explain it then asswipe. Why does that bird exist



Why would it not exist?



> why does it have to consume nectar rather than seeds?



Why would it eat seeds?


> Why is it so small?



Why would it be big?



> Why do the wings have to beat at such high speed



Why would they not?



> , why would it have "evolved" with such small wings that need to beat ridiculously fast just to remain airborn?



Why would it have evolved into a helicopter?



> Why can't science explain the abilities of the Bumble Bee?



Why are you too stupid to realize they they know how bumble bees fly?



> What organs are in a flea,



what subject of science might that be? I wonder whether there are books about such things....



> do they have brains?



if only there were a rational, naturalistic, logical approach f viewing the world that could tell us these things... and some sort of peer-review process to ensure accuracy...  and recognized journals and publishers for sharing this knowledge... and depositories for books that hae these information in them...



> If so, what do they think about?



I'd ask what you think  about, but you don't seem to think


----------



## waltky (Apr 17, 2013)

Pronounced Sea-la-canth...

*'Living fossil' coelacanth genome sequenced*
_17 April 2013 - The genetic secrets of a "living fossil" have been revealed by scientists._


> Researchers sequenced the genome of the coelacanth: a deep-sea fish that closely resembles its ancestors, which lived at least 300 million years ago.  The study found that some of the animal's genes evolved very slowly, giving it its primitive appearance.  The work also shed light on how the fish was related to the first land-based animals.  The coelacanth has four large, fleshy fins, which some scientists believe could have been the predecessors of limbs.  It had been suggested that this fish was closely related to early tetrapods - the first creatures to drag themselves out of the ocean, giving rise to life on land.  But the study, published in the journal Nature, suggested that another fish called the lungfish, which also has four limbs, had more genes in common with land-based animals.
> 
> Slow to change
> 
> ...


----------



## MeadHallPirate (Apr 26, 2013)

sitarro said:


> The operation of this incredible machine, at over 70 wing movements a second, make the evolutionary theory seem silly.......... are we really suppose to believe this extremely efficent design was just an accident?
> 
> YouTube - Time Warp: Hummingbird



ahoy Sitarro,

are ye sayin' that God made hummingbirds because 'o thar amazin' ability to flap thar wings so briskly?

_*ponders*_

i've read that turkeys be the dumbest bird in the world.  does that mean that God didn't make turkeys, but made hummingbirds, Sitarro?

- MeadHallPirate


----------

