Afraid to fly

One of the major planks in the idea of cosmic evolution is the transformation of reptiles into birds. I find this notion highly improbable.

Quote and comments;

1. 'Many textbooks tell young people today that birds are modified reptiles. Suppose, they say, that millions of years ago the scales on some reptiles began to fray along the edges. In time, they say, the frayed scales turned into feathers and birds were born. [1.]

- Why would scales begin to fray?
What would cause this? (Scales are pretty tough things, and appear to be designed not to fray.) As far as I know, we don't see that happening in our day. Furthermore, it would appear that there are 'mechanisms' in place to see to it that scales don't fray.
If a scale is damaged this isn't duplicated in offspring. What would make a 'fraying' that was reproduced? Presumbably some mutation; but I've never heard of this particular mutation.

Isn't it likely that if this scenario were to happen that the reptiles with fraying scales would be less able to compete and thus die out? Does it help a human being to get skin disease? Does it help them if their skin starts to decay and fall off? Is a sweater getting better or worse when it starts to unravel? Does a shirt turn into a pair of pants by wearing out?

Would it help humans to lose finger nails I wonder.

A 'frayed' scale turns into a bird? Really? That doesn't sound like science to me. In reality frayed scales get dropped and is replaced by a normal (unfrayed) scale.
People seem to forget that a scale has a job to do; a frayed scale is thus reduced in its capacity to do its job. (A rope that begins to fray can resist less and less stress until it breaks; and here we see evolutionary theory hanging by a thread.)

A reptile with damaged scales would presumably be less able to move, less able to ward off attack, less able to retain moisture, and perhaps less able to camouflage themselves, and perhaps more. It's hard to imagine how this could be beneficial. [2.]

When these frayed scales turned into feathers I wonder which way they turned, because it was a hell of a trick. This is like a rag turning into a fur coat, or a toy wagon turning into a Cadillac. This is one of the secular miracles that Darwinism relies on. Everyone knows this is nothing but a story; spreading paper over a pothole.

2. 'Even the most clever rebuilding of a reptile cannot produce a bird. In fact, birds have very little in common with reptiles. [5.]

- The idea reptiles were transformed into birds has its source in a particular (Uniformitarian) interpretation of the fossil record. No one would dream of such an 'impossible' transfiguration without the fossil record; without a particular reading of the fossil record. (The fossil record we see in textbooks is a deliberate construct, and not a faithful representation of the real world.)

Summary;
"Doth the hawk fly by thy wisdom, [and] stretch her wings toward the south?" - Job 39:26
- No; the hawk flies because it was programmed by its creator to do so. It's not only intelligence that we see in the world, but divine wisdom. Wisdom is something over and above intelligence, as we can plainly see by observing intelligent people do and say stupid things. Wisdom in the sense meant here refers to seeing the whole picture, to seeing the entire ecological system and how it interacts.

- M. Johnson

Notes;
1. Designed for Flight - Paul Bartz
2. Scales functions;
'The scales of a snake primarily serve to reduce friction as it moves, since friction is the major source of energy loss in
snake locomotion. The ventral (or belly) scales, which are large and oblong, are especially low-friction, and some arboreal species can use the edges to grip branches. Snake skin and scales help retain moisture in the animal's body. - wiki
- It wouldn't surprise me if scales had undiscovered functions.
4. Scale functions
Movement;
The scales on some reptiles assist the reptile with movement. In the case of snakes, the snake's belly scales are able to grab onto tiny imperfections on surfaces and create friction to propel the snake forward.
Protection;
The thick, prickly scales on a reptile can help protect it from predators. They can make it difficult for predators to bite or attack the reptile, as well as cause injury to the predator.
In the case of other reptiles, the color of the scales can provide a defense against attack. One example of this is the non-venomous milk snake, whose black and red ringed pattern resembles that of the highly venomous coral snake.
Water Retention;
Reptiles living in the desert have evolved special adaptations that allow them to thrive in the hot and dry climate. The scales of many desert reptile species allow them to retain moisture by preventing the evaporation of water through the skin. This allows the animal to become dehydrated less frequently and require smaller amounts of water to survive.
Camouflage;
The scales of many reptile species are either plainly or elaborately colored to assist with camouflage. This includes certain species of leaf-tail geckos, who can completely blend in to surrounding tree trunks and branches in their natural environment. [ehow.com]
5. 'Even the most clever rebuilding of a reptile cannot produce a bird. In fact, birds have very little in common with reptiles. The entire being of the bird, from body to brain, has been specially designed for flight by a Creator who clearly knows everything there is to know about flight. - Bartz; above
6. I was thinking of giving this post the title 'Affrayed to fly' but resisted the temptation.

Darwinism and the theology of perfection

Some popular apologists for cosmic evolution like to make the argument that because certain organs or processes in the biological world aren't perfect, this means they weren't created. We'd like to disagree.

Quotes and comment;

1. 'First, Dawkins levels the charge that much of what exists in nature is far from perfectly designed and is only good enough. [1.]

- The idea of perfection requires a standard, and since the evolutionist has no standard (for perfection) he's got no right to employ the term in his arguments. Perfection is an evaluation, and such valuation can only be made by a personal agent. In the case of the animal world, only the one who created the kinds knows what the standard of perfection is. When Genesis tells us god declared the creation to be very good, we assume this means perfect, but the text doesn't say this. When God says it was very good this means that the creation was what he intended it to be.

Dawkins plays the game of pretending he's never heard about the Fall, and that nowhere in the bible does it say (after the Fall) that anything is perfect; in fact it says the opposite, and points out the the whole earth is under a curse, and moans and travails...

It's unrealistic (unscientific?) to imagine a perfect creation would remain that way under conditions of entropy. One wonders what possible warrant e.s can have for demanding perfect 6,000 years after creation.

A common reason e.s give for rejecting creation is the idea x or y (e.g. the eye) isn't perfect. This is a strange and illegitimate argument, as they have taken a concept from geometry and applied it to living organisms. This is what we call a category mistake. There is no warrant for applying a geometric standard to something biological. (That said we know that there's not even any such thing as a perfect triangle; for geometry deals with 'imaginary' objects; and so it's perfection is ideal not physically real.)

The evolutionist claims that if god created everything it would be perfect. I'm not sure who first came up with this argument (and it has the whiff of ancient Greece about it) but it's simply fallacious. The argument depends upon men being able to know exactly who god is and how he would do things. If evolutionists read a little theology they'd know that this is not the Biblical view at all. Cornelius Van Til was from a line of thinkers who thought God was far beyond man's full comprehension.

This bit of Darwinian theology is a straw man argument, as there is nothing in the bible that would lead anyone to think this is a perfect world. (I can see how someone might get that idea if the first two chapters were as far in Genesis as they got, since there's a sense in which the world was perfect before the Fall; but after the Fall we are told the earth was cursed.)

As an aside; when God declares the creation to be good; to be very good, he isn't saying this in the sense he's surprised or pleased with how things came out, as if he were saying ''boy it came out as good as I'd hoped'' or somesuch. No; he's saying this for the benefit of mankind, as He is well aware of what is going to happen, and He wants to see that the blame for the coming 'imperfection' goes where it should.

We have no right to employ the standard of perfection to living organisms; and even more especially to man. Unfortunately this is what we so often do; and you can ride the train and hear people complain about the fact their jobs aren't perfect, their marriages aren't perfect, their lives aren't perfect, and so on. You'd think they were triangles and squares at heart, or had been so in a previous life. They then go about solving the problem of imperfection; getting rid of an imperfect mate and beginning a search for a perfect one, and so on.

It's interesting to me that the best the evolutionist can do to critique the Genesis account is to hold it up to a fallacious, unrealistic and bogus standard.

In an entropic universe there is no way that there could still be perfection 6,000 (or more) years after creation. No biblical creationist denies mutations and damage to the genome; the universe being what it is, this is inevitable. The bible does not say the world is perfect, and even the atheist is well aware that it doesn't. ("The creation moaneth and travaileth,'' we read in Romans.) The 'imperfections' that we see in the world (and in ourselves) are just what we would expect given the Genesis account of creation. (I seem to remember reading that each individual inherits as many as 60 mutations. At this rate there would have been a lot of damage in 6,000 years.)

One response you get from atheists is ''well since you people think all things are possible with god, then god could have maintained a perfect creation, and if he's all good, as you say, then he would have. Since the world isn't perfect god doesn't exist.''

This isn't science, it's speculation. It might be even be true that God could have done this, but we're told that this is not what he did. The whole creation fell under a curse because of man's sin. (This may have been more a matter of withholding of grace as it were, instead of an active curse. i.e. perfection might have required a continuing work on God's part to maintain it, and when the fall occurred God ended or curtailed this upholding of things.)

- M.D. Johnson

Notes;
1. River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life by Richard Dawkins - Reviewed by Raymond G. Bohlin
2. Perfect; adj
- early 13c., from O.Fr. parfit (11c.), from L. perfectus "completed," pp. of perficere "accomplish, finish, complete," from per- "completely" + facere "to perform" (see factitious). Often used in English as an intensive (perfect stranger, etc.). The verb meaning "to bring to full development" is recorded from late 14c.
A. Completely corresponding to a description, standard, or type: a perfect circle; a perfect gentleman.
- the general image is of a craftsman making some object (e.g. a chair) gradually putting it together, finishing it, perfecting it, making it as close to the model as possible. (We all know it won't stay 'perfect' for long :=} The Darwinist is in the hopeless position of trying to explain perfection as the result of a long line of accidents and chance events.
b. Being without defect or blemish: a perfect specimen.

Notes on language; the deadly effects of Darwinian grammar

In this post I want to make some comments on the effect of Darwinism on language. I'll use an article from the current issue of 'Discover' magazine as an example.

Quotes and comments;

1. 'Instinct tells us that sharks are more deadly than delicious fatty foods. Instinct is wrong.' [1.]

- The problem with this claim is the use of the word 'deadly' for both these dangers. E.s seem to delight in abusing language, in endless conflation. A shark is a positive threat, a living organism, a predator that attacks; to put it simply, fat is not. Fat is not an active living entity for one thing. We willingly ingest fat; it does not ingest us. [2.]

Instinct is wrong? Instinct can never be wrong from an evolutionary point of view; instincts just are, they're not right or wrong. There is no right or wrong in evolution. (I wish evolutionists would take their own theory seriously; and stop pretending it is what it is not.) Saying instinct is wrong amounts to saying evolution is progressive, and you know where it's going, and how. Wrong is a theistic concept, and is meaningless apart from it.

We can by this example see how desperate science types are to trash 'traditional' views... to pretend only 'science' can give real answers to questions.

If I like fatty foods and ingest them, they do not consist of a danger; they're a 'risk' I've decided to accept for the sake of pleasure. You cannot call that a 'deadly' danger.

Sharks want to kill, fats do not (they don't want anything).

I get tired of this endless abuse of language in our sci mags. (Are vagueness, imprecision, conflation, obfuscation considered good method these days?)

Fats may kill but they don't lead you left bleeding and torn in the water; they don't deprive you of vitality and effectiveness in your life the way missing an arm or a head might. i.e. the effects are utterly different. (We need fats, although certain kinds of processed fats can be harmful. i.e. it's not the 'instinct' that leads us astray, but the modern food processing industry... you would think this would be an important caveat.)

They ignore the fact different things are dangerous at different times; e.g. we don't fear fats when out for a swim in the ocean, or fear sharks when eating a hamburger. (at least few of us do.)

Fatty foods are not deadly; the fact some (processed ones) can be deadly does not give anyone a warrant for conflating fat and deathly risk. Claiming the fatty foods are deadly amounts to saying x = y; where x is fat and y is deadly, and this is just false. i.e. fatty foods are more than just deadly (if in fact they are; we need to remind readers that much of the modern campaign to vilify fats stems from a belief vegetarianism is a righteous lifestyle and eating meat is evil).
They are delicious, necessary, comforting, healthy, and at times the only available choice, etc. ie. you cannot say F = D; as F includes more than D. (To vilify fatty foods is to hold liberty cheap; something only people with liberty do.)

We see here the desire of the educated to look down on the masses; to imagine the latest findings in Nature = God's own truth. The authors are laughing at the poor deluded masses. (Maybe we should put them on a fat-free diet to atone for their sins, and see how they do.)

You can't equate a death occasioned by great terror, with a death of contented debauchery. You can't equate all dangers; this makes no sense. (Is it good method to claim x, y, and z are all the same thing?)

For better or worse we face many different dangers; some come from without and some come from our own hand. To say fats are deadly is like saying sharks and alcohol are both deadly entities; ignoring the fact one has a mission to see you as a piece of meat and the other is self inflicted. (Is this kind of confusion good method?)

The shark has an aim and an intent while fat does not.

A shark attack is a hundred percent negative, while eating fatty foods is not. (Without fats in our diet our brains would atrophy and implode; no fat = no brain.)

A shark has been designed (in part) as a killing machine; it is what it is becausse of its status as predator.

We can't conflate all fats; there is nothing 'deadly' about natural fats. eg. is salmon deadly? (Is it good method to ignore important distinctions?)

Sharks are hostile, fats are not. (We'll not mention the fact sharks have fat in them, as we don't want to confuse readers who've been victimized by the bad writing of sci mags. Yes; in this sense, fats can be deadly :=}

You can't conflate dying over decades with dying in minutes. (Is it good method to ignore time factors?) I don't think many people would be terrified of shark attacks if they resulted in death over 3-5 decades.

This isn't science; it's PC goofiness. (We used to have the Left wing, and the right wing; now we need a new wing for the politically correct crowd. The PC wing I guess.)

You can see the obvious motivations behind this silly claim. What we see is an attempt to derive morals from science; the attempt to bridge the gap between description and prescription; something that David Hume insisted could not be done. The unstated message is clear (and I find it sad that so much science is now written up as secular sermon) ''don't eat meat; save the planet by becoming a vegetarian."

This attitude reminds me of something taken from Star Trek; the next generation... where humans no longer 'enslave' animals for the purpose of eating them. (In slave we have more conflation, as the same term is used for animals and humans; where it's only applicable for humans.)

You'd have better luck trying to persuade sharks to quit eating meat, than you would at persuading human beings to stop eating fatty foods. Christianity tells us that men have been given the freedom (by God) to eat what they will in the post incarnation era. Each person must decide for themselves what is best, what best conforms to their conscience. We have no right to ever violate God's will for our lives (revealed through his laws and commandments) but we do have the right to eat meat and fatty foods. They are not deadly; what is deadly is sin.

Summary;
- Behind the Darwinian misuse of language lies a monistic model of reality; the idea that all things (being merely matter in motion) are essentially one, and are connected in a chain of being from a common ancestry. (That this is speculative vision imposed on reality will become clear in the years to come, if I'm any good at guessing, as even with the evolutionary camp people are beginning to question and even reject the common ancestor idea.)
This is the rationale (conscious or unconscious) for using the same terms for both animals and humans (for all things in fact). e.g. animal behavior described in moral terms, the conflation of animal 'tool making' and human tool making, the 'language' of animals and humans, and so on. This abuse has become rampant, and constitutes a danger to any traditional notion of civilization.

- Mike Johnson

Notes;
1. Discover; July/August 2011
What You Don't Know Can Kill You
'Instinct tells us that sharks are more deadly than delicious fatty foods. Instinct is wrong. Risk analysts take on evolution.'
2. Why is fat delicious if it's a negative thing? The materialist has to explain this in evolutionary terms.
3. Man before the Fall was a vegetarian, and only after the Fall became a meat eater. During the era of Israel, there were strict dietary laws. After Christ men were given the right to eat as they thought best. In heaven? I don't know. It may be that we won't eat there at all. I take this to mean (contra Vegetarians, and Paleos) that there is no one diet that is best for all people at all times.