For non theists: Stages of evolution, can we develop wings?

by cyberjesus 52 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • cyberjesus

    Thanks Missing link

  • Gerard

    If the spontaneous mutations we endure while living in the trees for millions of years actually bring about lighter body weight and feathers that facilitate tree-flying, feeding, reproduction and protection from the environment, then yes, we could beguin to develop wings in a natural way.

    A current erxample is the seal. It used to look like a wolf, it thrived in the ocean shores and now it is adapting to a marine environment, so its feet will eventually disapear as it happened with the dolphins.

  • glenster
  • Gerard

    Nah.. falling is not flying. A man would do this:

  • Leolaia

    I can't believe people actually buy this crap that Italian, French, and Spanish "evolved" from Latin. The fact that French has no 's' next to a consonant where Latin has both (e.g. fête ~ Latin festa, bête ~ Latin bestia, fenêtre ~ Latin fenestra, etc.) among other things is proof in itself that the idea of language change is a fraud. Why would the 's' have to disappear in order for the language to survive? All the other Romance languages have 's' next to consonants and 's' is easy enough to drop, so why don't all the Romance languages lack 's' before consonants? Why didn't Italian drop 's' before consonants if it is easier to pronounce that way? Changing the pronunciation of words in particular locales is one of the most ridiculous ideas ever proposed and there are countless examples in French or Spanish of unnecessary "changing" of pronunciation from Latin and there are many words where there is no change at all from Latin! Clearly, Spanish and French and Italian did not "evolve" from Latin.

  • glenster

    Then again, another man might do this:

    Just don't do it like this:

    Latin--dunno. I found this:

    "Vulgar Latin must be regarded not as extinct - since all modern Romance
    varieties are its continuation - but as replaced conceptually and terminologic-
    ally by multiple labels recognizing regional differences in linguistic

  • Paralipomenon

    By survival of the fittest, if mankind could only survive by flying, or climbing trees, then there exists a chance.

    To say this, you'd have to make the assumption that for some reason, mankind on the ground was more likely to be killed than those in high places. It would stand to reason that those that were lighter and had less mass would be more apt to jumping from tree to tree to find food or survive.

    So the eventual trend of breeding would meen that a lighter weight, good jumper would be more likely to survive than a heavier weight, bad jumper. The former would be more likely to breed than die and thus be more likely to pass on their genetic traits to their children.

    Would the eventual result be that of a human with wings? There would be a greater chance of humans going extict before a mutation bearing the marks of wings would occur, but tough to say.

    Possible? Yes. Likely? Not at all.

  • thetrueone

    There would be a greater chance of humans going extinct before a mutation bearing the marks of wings would occur.

    The fact that some species will and do go extinct is based in evolutionary science itself.

    The answer to the hypothetically posed question.

  • MissingLink

    Nice one Leolaia.

    And I agree with Gerard. I wasn't saying that our distant descendants could never have wings. But if they did develop wings at some point then they would first have gone through many other stages and would no longer be considered "human".

  • TD

    In line with what ML said, another thing to think about is that we humans are a very unspecialized, generic design. We can run (But not as well as a deer) we can climb (But not as well as a monkey) We can swim (But not as well as a seal) We've got reasonably good balance and coordination (But not as good as the average housecat)

    Physically, we're a "jack of all trades." We do lots of things, but none of them as well as creatures that are specialized for them. And this seems to go hand in hand with intelligence. The greater the intelligence, the wider range of things that a creature would need/want to do.

    When we talk about "Humans evolving wings" I'm assuming we're talking about the same adaptation of the pentadactyl forelimb that enables other warm blooded creatures to fly and not wings sprouting out of our backs like an angel.

    This adaptation is an extreme specialization that carries an enormous cost, because it involves sacrificing the forelimbs for most other uses. Stop and think about the 2010 Olympic games in Vancouver and all the different physical activities that humans will do. How many other creatures are capable of this range of activity? Certainly not the ones that fly. From our perspective, it is the specialization of creatures that limits them.

    So even if we ignore all the other problems with the idea, (i.e. It's not physically possible, Our mouths are not designed to take over the lost function of forelimbs like those of birds, Our skeleton is not designed for flight, our pulmonary systems are not efficient enough, etc., ect., etc.) when we talk about "Survival advantage" I'd have to honestly say, "What survival advantage?"

    Intelligence easily trumps flight as a survival advantage. And the idea of humans sacrificing the hand as the instrument of that intelligence in exchange for the ability to fly doesn't even make for good science fiction.

Share this