Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

why do some bird species have crest?

KthulhuHimself
Posts: 995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2016 6:01:53 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/31/2016 3:06:56 PM, film wrote:
for what reason those who did not have crest failed the natural selection?

It's probably a vestigial feature from when they were non-avian; and back then it was to protect them from the sun.

Man, dinosaurs are weird.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2016 6:40:32 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/31/2016 3:06:56 PM, film wrote:
for what reason those who did not have crest failed the natural selection?

Not really sure.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2016 8:53:08 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/31/2016 3:06:56 PM, film wrote:
for what reason those who did not have crest failed the natural selection?

Crests can be used for display (like peacock feathers), for intimidation (to appear bigger), probably for gestural communication too. This of course justifies natural selection.

About those who did not have crest failing natural selection... You need to be more specific. There's plenty of birds without crests...
keithprosser
Posts: 1,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2016 10:31:20 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
In some species it would be sexual selection.
https://en.wikipedia.org...
But the reason why some 'body forms' (for want of a better term) get to have more offspring than others on average (which is what natural selection is all about) can be difficult to identify.

For example, an individual with long legs might run faster, but is also more likely to suffer a broken leg bone than a shorter legged one. The optimal trade off depends on details of life style, the sort predators that are around, the terrain... and of course, what potential mates prefer.

So there might not be a simple answer why evolution takes any particular route, especially not one answer that covers all cases.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2016 12:14:43 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/1/2016 8:37:09 AM, film wrote:
i think the sexual selection can not explain the specific color of crest.

Well colour is already demonstrated to be very important in sexual selection among birds. Bright colours, achieved through high quantity of pigments, are usualy related to high quality diets, so it is easy to imagine why colour is attractive to potential partners. Also colour (usualy in particular patterns) might be important for intimidation purposes against predators (animals with yellow-black patterns, like some salamander species, are usualy avoided by predators).
v3nesl
Posts: 4,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2016 8:24:09 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/31/2016 3:06:56 PM, film wrote:
for what reason those who did not have crest failed the natural selection?

They look cool. And if that's not the right answer, then why do humans think they look cool?
This space for rent.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2016 10:32:14 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/31/2016 3:06:56 PM, film wrote:
for what reason those who did not have crest failed the natural selection?
Film, for some birds, a head crest serves a sensing role. For example in the 2010 paper Origin and Maintenance of Mechanosensory Feather Ornaments, biologists at two Canadian universities write:

Mechanosensory use is a seldom-mentioned function for feather ornaments, yet recent experimental evidence showed that the elaborate facial plumes of crevice-dwelling whiskered auklets, Aethia pygmaea, have just such a sensory role. Here we explored the evolutionary patterns of mechanosensory function of similar facial feather ornaments in related species. In an experimental chamber (maze) devoid of visible light, crested auklets, A. cristatella, a close relative of the whiskered auklet, showed an increase in head bumps (262%) after trial flattening of their forehead crest. The frequency of head bumps in the absence of the crest was positively correlated with the natural crest length of the crested auklet.

The authors think the development of an avian head-crest as a sensory organ may have preceded its use in sexual selection:

We suggest that selective pressure enforced by complex habitats may trigger facial feather exaggeration for mechanosensory use. Once the primordial sensory structures evolved, sexual and other social selection processes could act on these traits and lead towards further exaggeration.

Reference: [http://www.sciencedirect.com...]
dee-em
Posts: 6,469
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2016 6:16:36 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/8/2016 5:24:36 AM, film wrote:
so every bird should have a crest then, why not?

Why should every bird have a crest? Just because an adaptation is useful does not mean that it has to arise in every species.

The ability to fly is pretty useful to a bird. Why do some birds lack that capability? They should all have the ability to fly, right?
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2016 7:28:12 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/8/2016 6:16:36 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/8/2016 5:24:36 AM, film wrote:
so every bird should have a crest then, why not?

Why should every bird have a crest? Just because an adaptation is useful does not mean that it has to arise in every species.

The ability to fly is pretty useful to a bird. Why do some birds lack that capability? They should all have the ability to fly, right?

Just going to remind everyone that this penguin has the best crest: https://upload.wikimedia.org...(South_Georgia).jpg
Meh!
film
Posts: 85
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2016 1:52:38 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/8/2016 6:16:36 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/8/2016 5:24:36 AM, film wrote:
so every bird should have a crest then, why not?

Why should every bird have a crest? Just because an adaptation is useful does not mean that it has to arise in every species.

an adaptation so useful that only those who have it survived.

The ability to fly is pretty useful to a bird. Why do some birds lack that capability? They should all have the ability to fly, right?

why do some birds lack this ability is unexplainable by theory of evolution.
dee-em
Posts: 6,469
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2016 11:51:59 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/10/2016 1:52:38 PM, film wrote:
At 9/8/2016 6:16:36 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/8/2016 5:24:36 AM, film wrote:
so every bird should have a crest then, why not?

Why should every bird have a crest? Just because an adaptation is useful does not mean that it has to arise in every species.

an adaptation so useful that only those who have it survived.

What? There are plenty of bird species without it.

The ability to fly is pretty useful to a bird. Why do some birds lack that capability? They should all have the ability to fly, right?

why do some birds lack this ability is unexplainable by theory of evolution.

Please tell us why. We are all ears. Lol.
film
Posts: 85
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2016 5:29:02 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/10/2016 11:51:59 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/10/2016 1:52:38 PM, film wrote:
At 9/8/2016 6:16:36 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/8/2016 5:24:36 AM, film wrote:
so every bird should have a crest then, why not?

Why should every bird have a crest? Just because an adaptation is useful does not mean that it has to arise in every species.

an adaptation so useful that only those who have it survived.

What? There are plenty of bird species without it.

every peafowl has a crest. as per theory of evolution, those who did not have one couldn't survive.

The ability to fly is pretty useful to a bird. Why do some birds lack that capability? They should all have the ability to fly, right?

why do some birds lack this ability is unexplainable by theory of evolution.

Please tell us why. We are all ears. Lol.

like i said, it's unexplained.
dee-em
Posts: 6,469
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2016 1:23:00 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/11/2016 5:29:02 AM, film wrote:
At 9/10/2016 11:51:59 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/10/2016 1:52:38 PM, film wrote:
At 9/8/2016 6:16:36 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/8/2016 5:24:36 AM, film wrote:
so every bird should have a crest then, why not?

Why should every bird have a crest? Just because an adaptation is useful does not mean that it has to arise in every species.

an adaptation so useful that only those who have it survived.

What? There are plenty of bird species without it.

every peafowl has a crest. as per theory of evolution, those who did not have one couldn't survive.

Are you going to address what I wrote or only answer imagined questions? First it was every bird. Now it is every peafowl. Yes, we are all aware that members of a particular species share the same physical characteristics. Would you like to tell us something else which is bleeding obvious?

And just to set the record straight. A mutation in a peafowl resulting in no crest does not mean that the particular individual with it couldn't survive. It might survive quite well. The problem is that those with a crest will have a slight advantage in survivability (if the crest has utility) and/or attracting a mate (if the crest is involved in sexual selection). That means the no-crest mutation would not be expected to spread through the population. That is what the theory of evolution with natural selection predicts, not your warped understanding.

The ability to fly is pretty useful to a bird. Why do some birds lack that capability? They should all have the ability to fly, right?

why do some birds lack this ability is unexplainable by theory of evolution.

Please tell us why. We are all ears. Lol.

like i said, it's unexplained.

No, you said unexplainable. Try again, honestly this time. Why is some birds lacking this ability unexplainable by the ToE?
film
Posts: 85
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2016 3:35:24 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/11/2016 1:23:00 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/11/2016 5:29:02 AM, film wrote:
At 9/10/2016 11:51:59 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/10/2016 1:52:38 PM, film wrote:
At 9/8/2016 6:16:36 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/8/2016 5:24:36 AM, film wrote:
so every bird should have a crest then, why not?

Why should every bird have a crest? Just because an adaptation is useful does not mean that it has to arise in every species.

an adaptation so useful that only those who have it survived.

What? There are plenty of bird species without it.

every peafowl has a crest. as per theory of evolution, those who did not have one couldn't survive.

Are you going to address what I wrote or only answer imagined questions? First it was every bird.

no, i did not write every bird.

Now it is every peafowl. Yes, we are all aware that members of a particular species share the same physical characteristics. Would you like to tell us something else which is bleeding obvious?

And just to set the record straight. A mutation in a peafowl resulting in no crest does not mean that the particular individual with it couldn't survive. It might survive quite well. The problem is that those with a crest will have a slight advantage in survivability (if the crest has utility) and/or attracting a mate (if the crest is involved in sexual selection). That means the no-crest mutation would not be expected to spread through the population. That is what the theory of evolution with natural selection predicts, not your warped understanding.

where are those peafouls who don't possess a crest, as per your understanding they should have a lesser population but it seems like they have become extinct.

The ability to fly is pretty useful to a bird. Why do some birds lack that capability? They should all have the ability to fly, right?

why do some birds lack this ability is unexplainable by theory of evolution.

Please tell us why. We are all ears. Lol.

like i said, it's unexplained.

No, you said unexplainable. Try again, honestly this time. Why is some birds lacking this ability unexplainable by the ToE?

there is no way a bird species will loose the ability to fly. yes, it is possible for some birds that belong to a particular species to loose this ability by successive negative mutations but then, they should survive.
dee-em
Posts: 6,469
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2016 11:38:35 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/11/2016 3:35:24 PM, film wrote:
At 9/11/2016 1:23:00 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/11/2016 5:29:02 AM, film wrote:
At 9/10/2016 11:51:59 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/10/2016 1:52:38 PM, film wrote:
At 9/8/2016 6:16:36 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/8/2016 5:24:36 AM, film wrote:
so every bird should have a crest then, why not?

Why should every bird have a crest? Just because an adaptation is useful does not mean that it has to arise in every species.

an adaptation so useful that only those who have it survived.

What? There are plenty of bird species without it.

every peafowl has a crest. as per theory of evolution, those who did not have one couldn't survive.

Are you going to address what I wrote or only answer imagined questions? First it was every bird.

no, i did not write every bird.

Stop lying. It is right there at the top of this post. You wrote "so every bird should have a crest then, why not?".

Now it is every peafowl. Yes, we are all aware that members of a particular species share the same physical characteristics. Would you like to tell us something else which is bleeding obvious?

And just to set the record straight. A mutation in a peafowl resulting in no crest does not mean that the particular individual with it couldn't survive. It might survive quite well. The problem is that those with a crest will have a slight advantage in survivability (if the crest has utility) and/or attracting a mate (if the crest is involved in sexual selection). That means the no-crest mutation would not be expected to spread through the population. That is what the theory of evolution with natural selection predicts, not your warped understanding.

where are those peafouls who don't possess a crest, as per your understanding they should have a lesser population but it seems like they have become extinct.

Didn't I just explain this? A species can become extinct, an individual bird just dies. At least get your terminology correct. Do you expect me to have a record of every peafowl which has ever lived for the last million years and whether it had a crest or not? Lol.

We know mutations happen. We see them in humans all the time. People born with six fingers or toes or webbing on them, albinos, multi-coloured eyes, lactose intolerance, colour blindness, susceptibility to breast cancer, etc. It would be far from surprising if there were a rare mutation in peafowl which results in no crest. Here is some anectodal evidence of a couple although it is unclear if they were born that way:

http://www.backyardchickens.com...

I fail to see what point you think you are making. Are you asserting that mutations are impossible? What precisely are you arguing?

The ability to fly is pretty useful to a bird. Why do some birds lack that capability? They should all have the ability to fly, right?

why do some birds lack this ability is unexplainable by theory of evolution.

Please tell us why. We are all ears. Lol.

like i said, it's unexplained.

No, you said unexplainable. Try again, honestly this time. Why is some birds lacking this ability unexplainable by the ToE?

there is no way a bird species will loose the ability to fly.

We have a bare assertion. Assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

yes, it is possible for some birds that belong to a particular species to loose this ability by successive negative mutations but then, they should survive.

You're a fool, and you have just contradicted yourself with what you said immediately above. Lol.

Negative mutations increasing the ability to survive? Don't be absurd. By definition negative mutations decrease the ability to survive and/or reproduce. Bird species which have lost their ability to fly became that way because they adapted to a ground-dwelling existence and their wings no longer served any purpose. Evolution soon devolves any organ or bodily appendage which is no longer useful as it costs the organism to maintain it for no return. It is as simple as that. Wings and flight feathers on emus and ostriches fall into that category. There are numerous examples in nature of vestigial organs or organs (such as eyes) which have dsappeared altogether via evolution.
film
Posts: 85
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2016 4:37:12 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/11/2016 11:38:35 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/11/2016 3:35:24 PM, film wrote:
At 9/11/2016 1:23:00 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/11/2016 5:29:02 AM, film wrote:
At 9/10/2016 11:51:59 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/10/2016 1:52:38 PM, film wrote:
At 9/8/2016 6:16:36 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/8/2016 5:24:36 AM, film wrote:
so every bird should have a crest then, why not?

Why should every bird have a crest? Just because an adaptation is useful does not mean that it has to arise in every species.

an adaptation so useful that only those who have it survived.

What? There are plenty of bird species without it.

every peafowl has a crest. as per theory of evolution, those who did not have one couldn't survive.

Are you going to address what I wrote or only answer imagined questions? First it was every bird.

no, i did not write every bird.

Stop lying. It is right there at the top of this post. You wrote "so every bird should have a crest then, why not?".

yes and i hold that true but for now we should forget other birds and talk about a specific bird species such as a peafowl

Now it is every peafowl. Yes, we are all aware that members of a particular species share the same physical characteristics. Would you like to tell us something else which is bleeding obvious?

And just to set the record straight. A mutation in a peafowl resulting in no crest does not mean that the particular individual with it couldn't survive. It might survive quite well. The problem is that those with a crest will have a slight advantage in survivability (if the crest has utility) and/or attracting a mate (if the crest is involved in sexual selection). That means the no-crest mutation would not be expected to spread through the population. That is what the theory of evolution with natural selection predicts, not your warped understanding.

where are those peafouls who don't possess a crest, as per your understanding they should have a lesser population but it seems like they have become extinct.

Didn't I just explain this? A species can become extinct, an individual bird just dies. At least get your terminology correct. Do you expect me to have a record of every peafowl which has ever lived for the last million years and whether it had a crest or not? Lol.

We know mutations happen. We see them in humans all the time. People born with six fingers or toes or webbing on them, albinos, multi-coloured eyes, lactose intolerance, colour blindness, susceptibility to breast cancer, etc. It would be far from surprising if there were a rare mutation in peafowl which results in no crest. Here is some anectodal evidence of a couple although it is unclear if they were born that way:

http://www.backyardchickens.com...

I fail to see what point you think you are making. Are you asserting that mutations are impossible? What precisely are you arguing?

The ability to fly is pretty useful to a bird. Why do some birds lack that capability? They should all have the ability to fly, right?

why do some birds lack this ability is unexplainable by theory of evolution.

Please tell us why. We are all ears. Lol.

like i said, it's unexplained.

No, you said unexplainable. Try again, honestly this time. Why is some birds lacking this ability unexplainable by the ToE?

there is no way a bird species will loose the ability to fly.

We have a bare assertion. Assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

yes, it is possible for some birds that belong to a particular species to loose this ability by successive negative mutations but then, they should survive.

You're a fool, and you have just contradicted yourself with what you said immediately above. Lol.

Negative mutations increasing the ability to survive? Don't be absurd. By definition negative mutations decrease the ability to survive and/or reproduce. Bird species which have lost their ability to fly became that way because they adapted to a ground-dwelling existence and their wings no longer served any purpose. Evolution soon devolves any organ or bodily appendage which is no longer useful as it costs the organism to maintain it for no return. It is as simple as that. Wings and flight feathers on emus and ostriches fall into that category. There are numerous examples in nature of vestigial organs or organs (such as eyes) which have dsappeared altogether via evolution.

you should stop reacting to glitches i intended to write : they should not survive, you can see eighteenth comment.
film
Posts: 85
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2016 4:49:18 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
rewriting my arguments -

And just to set the record straight. A mutation in a peafowl resulting in no crest does not mean that the particular individual with it couldn't survive. It might survive quite well. The problem is that those with a crest will have a slight advantage in survivability (if the crest has utility) and/or attracting a mate (if the crest is involved in sexual selection). That means the no-crest mutation would not be expected to spread through the population. That is what the theory of evolution with natural selection predicts, not your warped understanding.

how can this explain that those who did not have the slight advantage of crest went extinct?

my second point was - there is no way a bird species will loose the ability to fly. yes, it is possible for some birds that belong to a particular species to loose this ability by successive negative mutations but then, they should not survive.
dee-em
Posts: 6,469
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2016 5:09:06 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/12/2016 4:37:12 AM, film wrote:
At 9/11/2016 11:38:35 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/11/2016 3:35:24 PM, film wrote:
At 9/11/2016 1:23:00 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/11/2016 5:29:02 AM, film wrote:
At 9/10/2016 11:51:59 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/10/2016 1:52:38 PM, film wrote:
At 9/8/2016 6:16:36 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/8/2016 5:24:36 AM, film wrote:
so every bird should have a crest then, why not?

Why should every bird have a crest? Just because an adaptation is useful does not mean that it has to arise in every species.

an adaptation so useful that only those who have it survived.

What? There are plenty of bird species without it.

every peafowl has a crest. as per theory of evolution, those who did not have one couldn't survive.

Are you going to address what I wrote or only answer imagined questions? First it was every bird.

no, i did not write every bird.

Stop lying. It is right there at the top of this post. You wrote "so every bird should have a crest then, why not?".

yes and i hold that true but for now we should forget other birds and talk about a specific bird species such as a peafowl

Oh, I see. You were lying but let's conveniently forget that and pretend you weren't. You wrote "every bird" and you stand by it. So now the onus is on you to explain why there are bird species without crests when you claim every bird should have one. Any chance of a response or will you dodge again?

Now it is every peafowl. Yes, we are all aware that members of a particular species share the same physical characteristics. Would you like to tell us something else which is bleeding obvious?

And just to set the record straight. A mutation in a peafowl resulting in no crest does not mean that the particular individual with it couldn't survive. It might survive quite well. The problem is that those with a crest will have a slight advantage in survivability (if the crest has utility) and/or attracting a mate (if the crest is involved in sexual selection). That means the no-crest mutation would not be expected to spread through the population. That is what the theory of evolution with natural selection predicts, not your warped understanding.

where are those peafouls who don't possess a crest, as per your understanding they should have a lesser population but it seems like they have become extinct.

Didn't I just explain this? A species can become extinct, an individual bird just dies. At least get your terminology correct. Do you expect me to have a record of every peafowl which has ever lived for the last million years and whether it had a crest or not? Lol.

We know mutations happen. We see them in humans all the time. People born with six fingers or toes or webbing on them, albinos, multi-coloured eyes, lactose intolerance, colour blindness, susceptibility to breast cancer, etc. It would be far from surprising if there were a rare mutation in peafowl which results in no crest. Here is some anectodal evidence of a couple although it is unclear if they were born that way:

http://www.backyardchickens.com...

I fail to see what point you think you are making. Are you asserting that mutations are impossible? What precisely are you arguing?

So, no point? As I thought.

The ability to fly is pretty useful to a bird. Why do some birds lack that capability? They should all have the ability to fly, right?

why do some birds lack this ability is unexplainable by theory of evolution.

Please tell us why. We are all ears. Lol.

like i said, it's unexplained.

No, you said unexplainable. Try again, honestly this time. Why is some birds lacking this ability unexplainable by the ToE?

there is no way a bird species will loose the ability to fly.

We have a bare assertion. Assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

yes, it is possible for some birds that belong to a particular species to loose this ability by successive negative mutations but then, they should survive.

You're a fool, and you have just contradicted yourself with what you said immediately above. Lol.

Negative mutations increasing the ability to survive? Don't be absurd. By definition negative mutations decrease the ability to survive and/or reproduce. Bird species which have lost their ability to fly became that way because they adapted to a ground-dwelling existence and their wings no longer served any purpose. Evolution soon devolves any organ or bodily appendage which is no longer useful as it costs the organism to maintain it for no return. It is as simple as that. Wings and flight feathers on emus and ostriches fall into that category. There are numerous examples in nature of vestigial organs or organs (such as eyes) which have dsappeared altogether via evolution.

you should stop reacting to glitches i intended to write

I'm supposed to be a mind-reader? Lol.

they should not survive, you can see eighteenth comment.

Flightless birds should not survive? But they do. Are you now going to deny reality?
dee-em
Posts: 6,469
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2016 5:23:21 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/12/2016 4:49:18 AM, film wrote:
rewriting my arguments -

And just to set the record straight. A mutation in a peafowl resulting in no crest does not mean that the particular individual with it couldn't survive. It might survive quite well. The problem is that those with a crest will have a slight advantage in survivability (if the crest has utility) and/or attracting a mate (if the crest is involved in sexual selection). That means the no-crest mutation would not be expected to spread through the population. That is what the theory of evolution with natural selection predicts, not your warped understanding.

how can this explain that those who did not have the slight advantage of crest went extinct?

For the second time. Extinction applies to species. Individuals in a population just die, they do not "go extinct". I have answered your question in the paragraph just above. Did you bother reading it? How can you ask for an explanation when I just finished explaining it? There must be something wrong with you. This is the most elementary aspect of natural seoection, an integral part of the theory of evolution. Beneficial traits are passed on and spread through a population. Deleterious mutations soon die out.

my second point was - there is no way a bird species will loose the ability to fly.

Again, this is a bare assertion. Assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

yes, it is possible for some birds that belong to a particular species to loose this ability by successive negative mutations ...

See my previous answer which you chose to ignore. I don't know what a "negative" mutation is. Please define it in scientific terms.

... but then, they should not survive.

So emus, ostriches and kiwi birds do not exist? LMAO.
film
Posts: 85
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2016 9:45:36 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/12/2016 5:23:21 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/12/2016 4:49:18 AM, film wrote:
rewriting my arguments -

And just to set the record straight. A mutation in a peafowl resulting in no crest does not mean that the particular individual with it couldn't survive. It might survive quite well. The problem is that those with a crest will have a slight advantage in survivability (if the crest has utility) and/or attracting a mate (if the crest is involved in sexual selection). That means the no-crest mutation would not be expected to spread through the population. That is what the theory of evolution with natural selection predicts, not your warped understanding.

how can this explain that those who did not have the slight advantage of crest went extinct?

For the second time. Extinction applies to species. Individuals in a population just die, they do not "go extinct". I have answered your question in the paragraph just above. Did you bother reading it? How can you ask for an explanation when I just finished explaining it? There must be something wrong with you. This is the most elementary aspect of natural seoection, an integral part of the theory of evolution. Beneficial traits are passed on and spread through a population. Deleterious mutations soon die out.

As soon as some of the birds belonging to a particular species evolve a crest, it becomes two species.

my second point was - there is no way a bird species will loose the ability to fly.

Again, this is a bare assertion. Assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

you are right. there is no evidence that indicates any bird has lost its ability to fly.

yes, it is possible for some birds that belong to a particular species to loose this ability by successive negative mutations ...

See my previous answer which you chose to ignore. I don't know what a "negative" mutation is. Please define it in scientific terms.

negative mutation is a mutation that is not beneficial for survival.

... but then, they should not survive.

So emus, ostriches and kiwi birds do not exist? LMAO.

there.. you have it. evolution doesn't confirm to reality.
film
Posts: 85
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2016 9:50:22 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
We know mutations happen. We see them in humans all the time. People born with six fingers or toes or webbing on them, albinos, multi-coloured eyes, lactose intolerance, colour blindness, susceptibility to breast cancer, etc.

not even a single example for beneficial mutations. just as i thought.
dee-em
Posts: 6,469
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2016 1:12:14 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/12/2016 9:45:36 AM, film wrote:
At 9/12/2016 5:23:21 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/12/2016 4:49:18 AM, film wrote:
rewriting my arguments -

And just to set the record straight. A mutation in a peafowl resulting in no crest does not mean that the particular individual with it couldn't survive. It might survive quite well. The problem is that those with a crest will have a slight advantage in survivability (if the crest has utility) and/or attracting a mate (if the crest is involved in sexual selection). That means the no-crest mutation would not be expected to spread through the population. That is what the theory of evolution with natural selection predicts, not your warped understanding.

how can this explain that those who did not have the slight advantage of crest went extinct?

For the second time. Extinction applies to species. Individuals in a population just die, they do not "go extinct". I have answered your question in the paragraph just above. Did you bother reading it? How can you ask for an explanation when I just finished explaining it? There must be something wrong with you. This is the most elementary aspect of natural seoection, an integral part of the theory of evolution. Beneficial traits are passed on and spread through a population. Deleterious mutations soon die out.

As soon as some of the birds belonging to a particular species evolve a crest, it becomes two species.

What? Not necessarily. Why do you say that?

And how does this in any way support your previous suggestion that birds with no crest would "go extinct". You are making absolutely no sense.

my second point was - there is no way a bird species will loose the ability to fly.

Again, this is a bare assertion. Assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

you are right. there is no evidence that indicates any bird has lost its ability to fly.

No. There are no flightless birds. They are figments of our collective imagination. LMAO.

yes, it is possible for some birds that belong to a particular species to loose this ability by successive negative mutations ...

See my previous answer which you chose to ignore. I don't know what a "negative" mutation is. Please define it in scientific terms.

negative mutation is a mutation that is not beneficial for survival.

I said scientific. You are just making up your own nonsensical definitions without citing any source. The irony is that you can't even see the contradiction. Successive negative mutations? How can they be successive if each mutation is not beneficial for survival? You are science illiterate and simply incoherent.

... but then, they should not survive.

So emus, ostriches and kiwi birds do not exist? LMAO.

there.. you have it. evolution doesn't confirm to reality.

Oh, I see now. You accept that flightless birds exist. You accept that they are birds. You accept that they have vestigial wings which serve no real purpose. What you don't accept is that evolution could produce them via "negative mutations", your invented term. Talk about arguing a strawman. Lol.

I won't bother explaining again how evolution is perfectly capable of producing animals which lose some function which is no longer necessary for the particular ecological niche they moved into. I've done it once and it obviously went straight over your head. Either that or you simply have no interest in learning anything. I suspect both actually.

I presume you have an alternative theory of God-Did-It? That must make God the real practical joker, eh? He creates bird species with puny wings incapable of flight. He must be laughing himself silly even now. Just like I'm still LMAO at your and your silly arguments from ignorance. You don't understand the first thing about evolution but rather than educate yourself you have the arrogance to come here and pronounce on what evolution can and cannot produce. The hubris of the theist seems to have no bounds.
dee-em
Posts: 6,469
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2016 6:45:05 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/12/2016 9:50:22 AM, film wrote:
We know mutations happen. We see them in humans all the time. People born with six fingers or toes or webbing on them, albinos, multi-coloured eyes, lactose intolerance, colour blindness, susceptibility to breast cancer, etc.

not even a single example for beneficial mutations. just as i thought.

Is this a new claim, that beneficial mutations are impossible? Lol.

Please explain to us why a mutation can only be bad. We would love to be educated by the ignorant.

Here are four examples of beneficial mutations in humans:
http://bigthink.com...

And I could add a fifth and sixth right off the top of my head. Sherpas and Tibetans have several genes which help them use oxygen more efficiently at high altitude. Eskimos (the Inuit people) have unique genetic mutations that make them more adapted to cold as well as a diet high in omega-3 fatty acids, with the side effect of shorter height.

Anything else you need to be corrected on?