Page 1 of 3

About your idea on the flight of birds, Garudaman...

PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2018 11:43 pm
by manfred
Hi,

I recently watched an very interesting documentary on TV, about the evolution of flight.

In short, this is what it said:

Some dinosaurs evolved to walk on two legs only. (There are also intermediate forms, dinosaurs who mostly walk on four legs, by who can also run on two.)

Those who walked on legs, developed various uses for their "arms": some became claws fro grabbing and tearing, or for climbing, some simply withered and became redundant (as in T-Rex) but also some grew feathers on these arms. (Many dinosaurs also had feathers, mostly fluffy ones, like an ostrich) Originally these feathered arms probably found a use in mating rituals, and as a result some of the feathers evolved into larger ones, possibly also more colourful.

Then something interesting happened: If one of these feathered dinosaurs was threatened they usually tried to escape up a tree. They were generally small and they could used their clawed arms to climb. But, if you watch a young chicken that cannot not fly yet trying to escape it flaps it's wings and this allows it to "run" up a virtually vertical surface...!

It is likely that some dinosaurs also used this flapping technique to climb up a tree to escape a predator. This would create a selection pressure to make the feathers larger and stronger. Dinosaurs who can escape the quickest will have a better survival and mating chance.

From that, it is only a small step for flight to develop.... First, the arms get used to glide back down when the danger is passed, then, eventually intermittent flight like that of a chicken emerges, until eventually fight develops fully.


This explanation is a better one as it fits in with observable facts. In particular, it shows that flight is an adaptation to conditions in the environment, and not that somehow the environment is changed to accommodate pre-existing flight-enabled creatures, as you suggest.

Re: About your idea on the flight of birds, Garudaman...

PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 1:33 am
by Garudaman
who said the environment is changed? i said the environment is created from the beginning to accommodate the evolution of fly! :wot:

Re: About your idea on the flight of birds, Garudaman...

PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 4:46 am
by pr126
Insects, squirrels, even man can fly.

None of this could have happened without the will of Allah.
Thanks to Muhammad, who invented Allah.
What an achievement.

Image

Re: About your idea on the flight of birds, Garudaman...

PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 8:01 am
by manfred
Garudaman wrote:who said the environment is changed? i said the environment is created from the beginning to accommodate the evolution of fly! :wot:


Hello again,

The environment has changed constantly during the history of the earth, and is still changing.

Life had simply to adapt to changes or else die out. Your argument simply says "birds cannot fly without air. This proves that God created air to help the birds fly..."

It would be more accurate to say that by some fluke, as I described above, some animals learnt to take advantage of the air in a way other animals could not, and therefore gained an advantage. However, EVERY kind of animal, alive or extinct, had ways of using the environment it's own way.

Did God create grass for cows to eat or did cows develop a digestion system that allowed them to eat things many other animals could not?

Re: About your idea on the flight of birds, Garudaman...

PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 5:51 am
by Garudaman
manfred wrote:Did God create grass for cows to eat or did cows develop a digestion system that allowed them to eat things many other animals could not?

did cows develop a digestion system that allowed them to eat grass if there's no way to use grass to be food?

Re: About your idea on the flight of birds, Garudaman...

PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 6:36 pm
by manfred
My friend, you cannot seriously suggest that grass exists to be eaten by cows. All plants have some defence or another against being eaten... Some have poisons, some have thorns, some have tough wood, some even have a living community with things like ants, to prevent other animals eating them...

Grass is no exception. It does not have those things, but something else instead. It has a type of cellulose around each plant cell that makes it impossible to digest for most animals. Eventually some animals, however found a way to break down the cellulose, one group being the bovines, The grass responded to the new threat by growing faster and producing more seeds, and some types of also grew barbs and hairs that make any animal eating it cough.

Whenever one for of life develops a surviving strategy sooner or later another finds a way to beat that. The only plants that do not have natural defences are heavily domesticated ones: for example the banana. It does not even grow seeds any more, and it entirely dependent on humans for survival.

Why are there no wild plants that can easily be eaten by just anything? Simple: they HAVE all been eaten.

What makes our natural world as it is is not some detailed plan by an super-intelligent being, but millennia of this "arms race" between creatures, resulting in well adapted things to survive and others to die out.

If you believe in a creator, then you perhaps should suggest that what was created is this framework in which such an "arms race" could enfold.

Re: About your idea on the flight of birds, Garudaman...

PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 7:06 am
by Garudaman
manfred wrote:All plants have some defence or another against being eaten

"arms race" between creatures

thats defence isnt meant for not being eaten but not being eaten completely, as they're still need predator to control their own population.

manfred wrote:others to die out

even there's those which extinct, those which has died are still can being food for those which survive, then live as those which survive, & then in the end, the system still persist : plants -> herbivore -> carnivore/omnivore.

Re: About your idea on the flight of birds, Garudaman...

PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 7:57 am
by manfred
thats defence isnt meant for not being eaten but not being eaten completely, as they're still need predator to control their own population.


Plant do not have a brain or a will, so it makes no sense saying that anything they have or do "is meant". The defences they put up must be effective enough to ensure the survival of the species. If that is not the case, the plant will die out. And plants do not need "predators". Plants will simple grow and expand to wherever the environment allows them to. Plants even compete with each other for space.

even there's those which extinct, those which has died are still can being food for those which survive, then live as those which survive, & then in the end, the system still persist : plants -> herbivore -> carnivore/omnivore.


Have you been to the supermarket recently and asked for a dinosaur steak, as in the Flintstones? And this system you speak of, does it REQUIRE BY NECESSITY a creator or can it be explained in other ways, as science does?

Re: About your idea on the flight of birds, Garudaman...

PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2018 6:44 am
by Garudaman
manfred wrote:Plant do not have a brain or a will, so it makes no sense saying that anything they have or do "is meant".

it seems you're confused, read again what you said :
some even have living community with things like ants, to prevent other animals eating them...

:lotpot:

manfred wrote:The defences they put up must be effective enough to ensure the survival of the species. If that is not the case, the plant will die out. And plants do not need "predators".

all living being need population control to ensure their survival, unless they're rare.

manfred wrote:Have you been to the supermarket recently and asked for a dinosaur steak, as in the Flintstones? And this system you speak of, does it REQUIRE BY NECESSITY a creator or can it be explained in other ways, as science does?

ok, lets see how the science explain this : whats physical & chemical laws which make plant "choose" to survive? :sly:

Re: About your idea on the flight of birds, Garudaman...

PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2018 7:30 am
by manfred
Garudaman, I am not sure this is going anywhere... Have a look at acacia plants. They have ants living on them which violently attack animals trying to eat the plant.

The plants obviously did not "choose" an "ant defence plan". It simply worked like this: acacias with ant colonies survived better than any without. So in time this relationship become common place.

all living being need population control to ensure their survival, unless they're rare.


What population control do humans have?

ok, lets see how the science explain this : whats physical & chemical laws which make plant "choose" to survive?


a plant not adapted to its environment will die out. So we end up only with plants that have sufficient adaptation to survive.
A plant does not "choose". We sometime talk in those terms, but that is giving plants human properties.

What plants do have is an ability to evolve and adapt, to various degrees. A plant does not choose to have bulbs on its roots to store food and water, for example. It is simply that a plant which has such an adaptation in a dry place will have a better chance to survive.

Re: About your idea on the flight of birds, Garudaman...

PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2018 8:53 am
by Garudaman
http://goodnature.nathab.com/research-s ... cordingly/
in 2007 plant ecologist Susan Dudley of McMaster University in Ontario, Canada, worked with sea rockets—members of the mustard family native to beaches throughout North America, including the Great Lakes—to investigate whether plants can recognize their relatives. Dudley and a graduate student found there was less root competition when closely related “siblings” shared the same pot than when groups of strangers grew in a common container. This demonstrated that the sea rockets not only recognized but acted altruistically toward their relatives, a behavior known as “kin recognition.”

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/bl ... e-sentient
More surprising is the result of an experiment that Mancuso carried out with Mimosa pudica, the “touch-me-not” plant. He and colleagues dropped potted mimosas repeatedly onto foam from 15 centimeters (about 6 inches) above. The plants closed their leaves in response to the fall initially, but stopped doing so after four to six drops. It seems that they “learned” that there was no danger. It’s not that they were no longer able to close their leaves—they still would do so in response to touch. They retained this ability to discriminate between the harmless fall and the potentially harmful (about to be eaten) touch after a month.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... n-internet
Many plants will even warn others of their species when danger is near. If attacked by an insect, a plant will send a chemical signal to their fellows as if to say, “hey, I’m being eaten – so prepare your defences.” Researchers have even discovered that plants recognize their close kin, reacting differently to plants from the same parent as those from a different parent.

“In the last several decades science has been showing that plants are endowed with feeling, weave complex social relations and can communicate with themselves and with animals,” write Mancuso and Viola, who also argue that plants show behaviours similar to sleeping and playing.

so, again, whats physical & chemical laws which make plant "choose" to do those things? ;)

manfred wrote:What population control do humans have?

their brain for thinkin something such birth control? :???:

Re: About your idea on the flight of birds, Garudaman...

PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2018 11:40 am
by manfred
Oh dear... I take it you regularly have little chats with your plants in the garden?

You don;t seem to understand... plants do not "choose" anything. If, by some chance, they develop a trait that helps their survival, then they have an advantage of over the other plants. This means in the long run the others will become less and less and eventually die out.

And humans, you say, are the only things that should plan their own population control? ALL populations of living things are "controlled" the same way. Anything that is worse at adapting than other things will eventually die out. Humans, too. The world is continuously changing, and unless we learn to change with it, we will be the next dinosaurs.

Re: About your idea on the flight of birds, Garudaman...

PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2018 10:20 pm
by Fernando
manfred wrote: And this system you speak of, does it REQUIRE BY NECESSITY a creator or can it be explained in other ways, as science does?
And let's be clear, Garudaman: even if you postulate a creator, it doesn't contradict Manfred's explanation. All that is contradicted is what is SAID about Allah: that species were created fully formed. But Allah could instead have created a much simpler world, with the capacity for life and evolution, set it going, and left it alone. Are you quite, quite, sure that you've got a correct description of Allah's doings?

Re: About your idea on the flight of birds, Garudaman...

PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2018 7:09 am
by Garudaman
manfred wrote:You don;t seem to understand... plants do not "choose" anything. If, by some chance, they develop a trait that helps their survival, then they have an advantage of over the other plants. This means in the long run the others will become less and less and eventually die out.

if they who develop a trait that helps their survival, then its they who "choose", not nature laws, so again, whats make they choose to survive? its their soul, or the nature laws?

manfred wrote:And humans, you say, are the only things that should plan their own population control? ALL populations of living things are "controlled" the same way. Anything that is worse at adapting than other things will eventually die out. Humans, too. The world is continuously changing, and unless we learn to change with it, we will be the next dinosaurs.

the topic discussion, is about whether the population control is the part of adaptation or not.

Re: About your idea on the flight of birds, Garudaman...

PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2018 5:57 pm
by Fernando
Garudaman wrote:if they who develop a trait that helps their survival, then its they who "choose", not nature laws, so again, whats make they choose to survive? its their soul, or the nature laws?
Only you say that they "choose" - and you drop the quotation marks too. As Manfred says, they do NOT choose. Nor do the laws of nature choose, any more than the air invites birds to fly. There are just coincidences between a particular mutation and the nature of matter or the environment that allow plants or animals to make one tiny evolutionary step at a time.

Re: About your idea on the flight of birds, Garudaman...

PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2018 11:25 pm
by Garudaman
Fernando wrote:There are just coincidences between a particular mutation and the nature of matter or the environment that allow plants or animals to make one tiny evolutionary step at a time.

so whats caused that mutation? its their soul who wrote the command of eat in their DNA, or that command of eat is caused by nature law/matter & they're just born with the command of eat in the first place? & if its the second which the case then whats the nature/physic/chemical law which caused that command?

Fernando wrote:Are you quite, quite, sure that you've got a correct description of Allah's doings?

QS. 2:30. And [mention, O Muhammad], when your Lord said to the angels, "Indeed, I will make upon the earth a successive authority." They said, "Will You place upon it one who causes corruption therein and sheds blood, while we declare Your praise and sanctify You?" Allah said, "Indeed, I know that which you do not know."

the verse said that angels already know how human will become, before human was created, there's two possibilities :
1. Adam is not the first human.
2. angels measured it from animal (from what human evolved).

Re: About your idea on the flight of birds, Garudaman...

PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2018 6:24 pm
by manfred
so whats caused that mutation?

A mutation is a random change, caused by many things, such as radiation, some chemicals or foods, or some thing like that. Some mutations also simply occur through the random combination of genes from the male and the female: if the conditions are right, recessive genes become common.

Most mutations have negative effects on survival chances, and they die out. The neutral ones continue, and the one that help the organism thrive.

What makes a mutation a "good" one....? Often that depends on the environment: In Ireland there are a lot of people with pale skin and red hair. The relative lack of sunshine means this can be helpful: sunshine is less filtered and so people can make more vitamin D from relatively little light.

In a tropical country like yours the pale skin and red hair would be a disadvantage, as these people get very easily sun burnt. So... there are quite a few people with very pale skin in places like Ireland or Scotland, but in Indonesia people have darker skin to protect from the fierce sun.

Re: About your idea on the flight of birds, Garudaman...

PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 3:33 am
by Garudaman
so the command to eat for example, is coming from external factor? so an external factor write the command of eat on the DNA, & the living being cant eat before that writing?

Re: About your idea on the flight of birds, Garudaman...

PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 7:08 am
by manfred
Grudaman... an animal which has no desire or ability to eat will not live for long enough to reproduce.

Re: About your idea on the flight of birds, Garudaman...

PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 2:20 pm
by Garudaman
so where's come from that desire or ability?