“Common sense” question for an evolutionist

[whirlingmerc]

Is the following statement logical or is it illogical…?

“Human beings have the capability to someday fly."

What would you say... is this statement worthy of any consideration? Is the human species capable of giving rise to a flying descendant, or is this idea outright impossible?

I shall gluide in and answer..... shwoooooshhh...

If by fly you mean biologically like a bird? no
A bird lung is complex and like a continuous flow engine
the lungs give oxygen directly to the muscles
the bones are light and structures for flight
and in the end there is no path with small changes each propelled by an advantage to go from here to there

so no

If you mean using PAN AM or SOUTHWESTERN or flying through space in a SPACE STATION?
sure

 

[ChristineM]

Is the following statement logical or is it illogical…?

“Human beings have the capability to someday fly."

What would you say... is this statement worthy of any consideration? Is the human species capable of giving rise to a flying descendant, or is this idea outright impossible?

There is no imperative, no requirement, no bonus in human beings flying under their own power. Other than some children mimicking plains or soaring eagles with outstretched arms while running around a field there is no environmental stimulus to evolve a lighter, stronger bone structure, wings and the required musculature

Under natural circumstances the chances are impossibly tiny

 

[Skwim]

Can you imagine the size and strength of the muscles that will be needed to flap those wings!!

It would certainly be an odd creature.

Argentavis magnificens

Homo aviapian

.

 

[Valjean]

Is the following statement logical or is it illogical…?

“Human beings have the capability to someday fly."

What would you say... is this statement worthy of any consideration? Is the human species capable of giving rise to a flying descendant, or is this idea outright impossible?

My own answer.. “outright impossible.”
Why? I can’t see a human mother birthing a child that...
a) can fly, or
b) possesses the minute beginnings of characteristics for flight.

Anyone happen to find agreement with this basic reasoning?

First, would a flying descendant still be a human being? I'm assuming you're asking whether a flying animal could evolve from current hominins.

Possible, but very unlikely. it would take a lot of back tracking to reduce our size and some very unusual conditions to make converting our incredibly useful arms into a specialized flying apparatus. What environmental conditions would make such a change beneficial? What situation would select for such changes?

Current flying birds and mammals began as small quadrupeds. We see many examples in Nature of quadrupeds evolving into bipeds, leaving the anterior limbs free for other applications. Remember, evolution alters existing structures. Features like wings don't arise de novo. They are modifications of something already existing. Humans, like birds, pterosaurs, bats, &c, have nothing to convert into wings except front limbs.

Depends upon the environment. Either humans adapt or they perish. That's how Evolution works.

Altering our size to something more airworthy would be nothing remarkable. Nature does that all the time, but what conceivable environmental change would select for all the other changes that would be needed to convert a successful, terrestrial, arm-using species to a completely different design and lifeway? It's pretty late in the game for that big a change.

 

[Crossboard]

Thanks for all follow up and sharing intriguing comments.

I’m being told that my statement is invalid. Yes, agreed. No human mother can give birth to a human capable of flight. Common sense rules it out. And the human form is not suitable to give rise to a flying kind in future generations. common sense rules that out as well.

But, may I slightly alter the original post, in hope of “validating” it for more discussion?

Here goes:
Is the following statement logical or is it illogical…?

“A non-flying kind has the capability to someday fly."

My own answer: outright impossible.
Why? Because common sense rules this out as well.

Not being cute, but should I just accept the tenets of evolution without visualizing it occurring?

An animal which does not fly.... eventually producing an animal which does fly. How that actually happened is where I need help.

Anyone, please comment. This is what I want to hear more about. Thanks!

 

[ChristineM]

Thanks for all follow up and sharing intriguing comments.

I’m being told that my statement is invalid. Yes, agreed. No human mother can give birth to a human capable of flight. Common sense rules it out. And the human form is not suitable to give rise to a flying kind in future generations. common sense rules that out as well.

But, may I slightly alter the original post, in hope of “validating” it for more discussion?

Here goes:
Is the following statement logical or is it illogical…?

“A non-flying kind has the capability to someday fly."

My own answer: outright impossible.
Why? Because common sense rules this out as well.

Not being cute, but should I just accept the tenets of evolution without visualizing it occurring?

An animal which does not fly.... eventually producing an animal which does fly. How that actually happened is where I need help.

Anyone, please comment. This is what I want to hear more about. Thanks!

That flighted animals evolved from flightless is now without doubt, up to you whether you accept that or not.


This may help

The Evolution of Flight

 

[Darkstorn]

I’m being told that my statement is invalid. Yes, agreed. No human mother can give birth to a human capable of flight. Common sense rules it out. And the human form is not suitable to give rise to a flying kind in future generations. common sense rules that out as well.

Apparently common sense is not really "common," and it seems to differ between one person and another. What you say here would lead me to believe that YOU consider all the arguments in this thread invalid or simply did not understand them. Fair enough.

Your argument is an argument from incredulity, a logical fallacy.

But, may I slightly alter the original post, in hope of “validating” it for more discussion?

Here goes:
Is the following statement logical or is it illogical…?

“A non-flying kind has the capability to someday fly."

My own answer: outright impossible.
Why? Because common sense rules this out as well.

It's a logical fallacy.

Not being cute, but should I just accept the tenets of evolution without visualizing it occurring?

No. You also shouldn't accept something you don't understand: But you also can't rule out something you don't understand.

An animal which does not fly.... eventually producing an animal which does fly. How that actually happened is where I need help.

Good place to start:

Evolution - Wikipedia

 

[Valjean]

“A non-flying kind has the capability to someday fly."

My own answer: outright impossible.
Why? Because common sense rules this out as well.

First off, common sense is overrated. It was only after we abandoned common sense that the scientific revolution really took off and led to today's technology and understanding of the world that enabled it.
Second, natural selection, it seems to me, is entirely consistent with common sense. None of steps of evolutionary change seem particularly radical or far out. I hate to sound condescending, but it really does seem to be true that creationists don't really understand the process they're objecting to.

What steps in the evolution to flight, seem impossible to you?
We probably agree that there was once a time before flight, and I think we can agree that there are currently numerous and various modes of flight. Biology accounts for this by positing a series of small alterations in existing structures, driven by selective pressure. Religion accounts for it by, well... magic.

Not being cute, but should I just accept the tenets of evolution without visualizing it occurring?

An animal which does not fly.... eventually producing an animal which does fly. How that actually happened is where I need help.

Anyone, please comment. This is what I want to hear more about. Thanks!

But biology has described and provided examples, as well as theoretical and empirical support for these steps, in practically every textbook and research paper for the past century or more.
Flight is not a particularly remarkable achievement; no more so than sight or bipedalism.

Not to be critical, again, but how is it that creationists can graduate high school and still seriously make the uninformed arguments they so consistently do?

Crossboard, biology is a vast discipline. Could you narrow down your query with some specific questions we could begin with?

 

[columbus]

Here goes:
Is the following statement logical or is it illogical…?

“A non-flying kind has the capability to someday fly."

My own answer: outright impossible.
Why? Because common sense rules this out as well.

Once there were no living things at all, then there were.
Once there were no air breathing creatures, then there were.
Once there were no mammals, then there were.
Once there were no flying mammals, then there were.

Obviously kinds(species) do change in dramatic ways, although it takes a very long time to accumulate the tiny adaptations that result in those dramatic changes.
So while it's implausible that humans would ever naturally evolve flight capacity, having no evolutionary pressure to do so, impossible isn't a word I would use.

Frankly, I wouldn't even want it. If I am going to be high up in the air I would want pretty good protection from the elements.
Tom

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Honestly, I do see a huge moral issue looming on the horizon. How different from a genetically "normal" human can an organism be and still be human?

People can't even agree on normal humans being human. There will always be some jerk making it a life mission to deny humanity to someone.

I welcome all persons: human and nonhuman alike.

Why? I can’t see a human mother birthing a child that...
a) can fly, or
b) possesses the minute beginnings of characteristics for flight.

I'm too fat to fly. I accept my fate.

Would a creature that had evolved from a human into something with a light-weight frame and wings enough to fly still be classified as "human?"

Not on earth, but I bet this could be done way more easily in outer space. Astronauts can't even return to earth without suffering some ill effects for awhile. Imagine a race of humans bred in space.

“A non-flying kind has the capability to someday fly."

Isn't that how birds and bats and flying insects came to be?

 

[robocop (actually)]

Is the following statement logical or is it illogical…?

“Human beings have the capability to someday fly."

What would you say... is this statement worthy of any consideration? Is the human species capable of giving rise to a flying descendant, or is this idea outright impossible?

Interestingly enough, even though I am a creationist, because we have opposable thumbs and heavier brains and all, we can fly harder... perhaps even living on Mars someday if we can overcome some obstacles. Humans take on different animal characteristics with tools... that makes them better and the function itself unnecessary.

 

[siti]

I'm too fat to fly. I accept my fate.

I'm not fated to fly either - I accept my fat!

But most seem to have missed the point of evolution - of course it is entirely possible that the evolutionary descendants of non-flying hominids - or any other species for that matter - could evolve the ability to fly. Flight has evolved several times already in the animal kingdom including among mammals - bats. And the ability can also be lost - such as it has for penguins for example.

I have no idea what "common sense" has to do with it - these type of questions have more to do with common nonsense and common misconceptions as far as I can tell.

 

[Crossboard]

That flighted animals evolved from flightless is now without doubt, up to you whether you accept that or not.


This may help

The Evolution of Flight

 

[columbus]

There is no imperative, no requirement, no bonus in human beings flying under their own power.

There's also the huge disadvantage of growing your own non-detachable wings. How often would having wings be an advantage over a detachable device serving the same purpose, which we could easily enough produce now. Especially with the recent advances in drone technology.
Tom

 

[Valjean]

There's also the huge disadvantage of growing your own non-detachable wings. How often would having wings be an advantage over a detachable device serving the same purpose, which we could easily enough produce now. Especially with the recent advances in drone technology.
Tom

We replaced food processing from the mouth to the hands; then to tools and fire. Humans have substituted technology for anatomy. We have no need to adapt anatomically to fly. We use technology.

 

[Altfish]

No human mother can give birth to a human capable of flight.

You seem to be showing a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution with that statement. You are implying that it will happen in one generation.
Of course that cannot happen, evolution doesn't claim it can.
But the people who were answering the question were considering the possibility over (say) 10,000 generations of incremental change.

 

[sayak83]

Thanks for all follow up and sharing intriguing comments.

I’m being told that my statement is invalid. Yes, agreed. No human mother can give birth to a human capable of flight. Common sense rules it out. And the human form is not suitable to give rise to a flying kind in future generations. common sense rules that out as well.

But, may I slightly alter the original post, in hope of “validating” it for more discussion?

Here goes:
Is the following statement logical or is it illogical…?

“A non-flying kind has the capability to someday fly."

My own answer: outright impossible.
Why? Because common sense rules this out as well.

Not being cute, but should I just accept the tenets of evolution without visualizing it occurring?

An animal which does not fly.... eventually producing an animal which does fly. How that actually happened is where I need help.

Anyone, please comment. This is what I want to hear more about. Thanks!

Yes. A non flying animal can evolve into a flying one. Here is a possible progression.

Squirrel

Flying squirrel

Bats

Does not look at all absurd to me.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Thanks for all follow up and sharing intriguing comments.

I’m being told that my statement is invalid. Yes, agreed. No human mother can give birth to a human capable of flight. Common sense rules it out. And the human form is not suitable to give rise to a flying kind in future generations. common sense rules that out as well.

But, may I slightly alter the original post, in hope of “validating” it for more discussion?

Here goes:
Is the following statement logical or is it illogical…?

“A non-flying kind has the capability to someday fly."

You first have to define "kind". We know for a fact that populations of organisms can evolve to develop flight.

My own answer: outright impossible.
Why? Because common sense rules this out as well.

How so?

Not being cute, but should I just accept the tenets of evolution without visualizing it occurring?

What does visualization have to do with it?

An animal which does not fly.... eventually producing an animal which does fly. How that actually happened is where I need help.

Anyone, please comment. This is what I want to hear more about. Thanks!

Well, it wouldn't be as simple as "not flying -> flying". It is a more gradual process. More like "not flying -> feathered -> gliding -> flying". There are competing hypotheses as to how flight specifically developed, however.

Origin of avian flight - Wikipedia

 

[Valjean]

Given that most of us agree flight happened, the only question seems to be, how?
Magic vs natural mechanisms. Which seems more commonsense?

 

[ChristineM]

There's also the huge disadvantage of growing your own non-detachable wings. How often would having wings be an advantage over a detachable device serving the same purpose, which we could easily enough produce now. Especially with the recent advances in drone technology.
Tom

It would certainly limit the way one eats dinner