Hello aiki, welcome to the forum. Hope you enjoy your stay!

Thank you!

Another bird's interesting migratory behaviour may be relevant here. The Blackcap Sylvia atricapilla is a small songbird that visits north-west Europe in summer to breed, and migrate to Iberia and north Africa for the winter. I'm seeing loads of them at my local nature reserve at the moment. Since the 1960s, people have noticed Blackcaps overwintering in Britain, in increasing numbers. Ringing (banding) studies showed that the wintering birds are not British ones that forgot to leave, but have come over from central Europe.

Most Blackcaps from central Europe migrate south-west in winter, to the same locations as the British ones. However, a small but growing number now go NNW and winter in Britain, where they survive remarkably well and exploit back-garden feeding stations.

Captive breeding studies among known SW and NNW migrants show that preferred migratory direction breeds true, indicating that it is a) determined by genes and b) controlled by a small number of genes. As the NNW migrants have a shorter journey, they are back on the breeding grounds before the SW migrants, and so most NNW birds pair up with other NNWers, leaving the SWers to breed among themselves. So, reproductive isolation is happening (in time rather than space) and the two forms are beginning to show small but subtle plumage and structural differences - incipient speciation More here: http://jeb.biologists.org/content/199/1/49.full.pdf and here: http://www.biologie.uni-freiburg.de/dat ... rbio09.pdf

asyncritus wrote:

biggles53 wrote:Creationism = Willful ignorance + intellectual dishonesty + Morton's Demon.....

yadda yadda yadda...

I think 'wakka wakka wakka' would be more appropriate.

aiki wrote:

Hello aiki, welcome to the forum. Hope you enjoy your stay!

Thank you!

Another bird's interesting migratory behaviour may be relevant here. The Blackcap Sylvia atricapilla is a small songbird that visits north-west Europe in summer to breed, and migrate to Iberia and north Africa for the winter. I'm seeing loads of them at my local nature reserve at the moment. Since the 1960s, people have noticed Blackcaps overwintering in Britain, in increasing numbers. Ringing (banding) studies showed that the wintering birds are not British ones that forgot to leave, but have come over from central Europe.

Most Blackcaps from central Europe migrate south-west in winter, to the same locations as the British ones. However, a small but growing number now go NNW and winter in Britain, where they survive remarkably well and exploit back-garden feeding stations.

Captive breeding studies among known SW and NNW migrants show that preferred migratory direction breeds true, indicating that it is a) determined by genes and b) controlled by a small number of genes. As the NNW migrants have a shorter journey, they are back on the breeding grounds before the SW migrants, and so most NNW birds pair up with other NNWers, leaving the SWers to breed among themselves. So, reproductive isolation is happening (in time rather than space) and the two forms are beginning to show small but subtle plumage and structural differences - incipient speciation More here: http://jeb.biologists.org/content/199/1/49.full.pdf and here: http://www.biologie.uni-freiburg.de/dat ... rbio09.pdf

Welcome Aiki.... my goodness, you're bringing facts to the table. Prepare to be summarily dismissed by the Goddidit Guru.

asyncritus wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:Here is a map of the world. It looks like Alaska is far from China Russia, but that is because they are at the edges. Join the edges and you see that the aren't that far apart.

Here is the migration path of the New Zealand bar tailed godwit. notice how it follow island chains to china.

Can't you see a vast journey over only ocean? On the right hand side of your nice map?

No, I see a long migration that connects islands to main land China to Northern Russia to Alaska over a short sea flight. Do you think that it is just coincidence that the migratory paths follow island chains?

Honestly, OS, I can't see island chains on the right side of that map. That longest right hand line doesn't cross island chains, unless the map is wrong, but I can't comment on that.

There are no non-stop overseas flight. There are shorter flights from one place to another.

You didn't read the article either, did you? Here:

"According to Dr. Clive Minton (Australasian Wader Studies Group) "The distance between these two locations is 9,575 kilometres (5,950 mi), but the actual track flown by the bird was 11,026 kilometres (6,851 mi). This was the longest known non-stop flight of any bird."

Not non-stop, huh?

Are you arguing that any of these birds flew 6851 miles without stopping? Or maybe Minton meant not stopping to nest? Wiki can be your friend sometimes. Sometimes not.

I'm not arguing anything. Clive Minton makes the statement, and I'm merely quoting what wiki said that he said. If he's right, then the flight is non-stop.

But as I said, that's by the by. The real point is that the birds fly about 7000 miles over ocean, and they do so, both ways, every year. They must know where they're going - because they do it twice a year.

I've read articles which say that some birds (like the Short-tailed Shearwater) make a flight of 25,000 km, and return to the same nest every year. Here's the article: http://www.port-fairy.com/shearwaters.htm and I quote:

Each year the bulk of the colony (the beeding age birds) return to the nesting grounds on almost the same day. Individuals return to the same nest burrow they occupied the previous year and generally mate with the same partner throughout their breeding life.

In mid April the adult birds commence their Pacific migration leaving the young behind. Hunger begins to bring the chicks from the nest at night, until they eventually set off after the adults. Somehow they find the migratory route without the guidance of the older birds.

Mortality is high in thefirst year, with only about half of those leaving the nest surviving. The non-breeding young birds follow a slightly later migration timetable. Reproductive maturity is attained at about five years of age.

After departing from the breeding grounds, the birds fly rapidly north to their wintering grounds arounds the Aleutian Islands and Kamchatka peninsula at the most northern extremity of the Pacific. That part of the journey is about 15,000 km.


The return journey follows the coast of North America to California, then south-west across the Pacific. Prevailing winds aid their flight for most of the journey but on the final leg, from the central Pacific, the birds battle across south-east winds. They return to their nesting grounds exhausted. That's another 10,000 km, about.

I'm not surprised they're exhausted! But how does one explain such a monumental migration on evolutionary grounds?

Yet another grand argument from personal incredulity.

asyncritus wrote:If I were an evolutionist

But you're not, not even close, so you have no idea what we would or wouldn't do.

asyncritus wrote:I'd have the utmost difficulty looking at facts like those (and you can look them up, or I can go find them for you) and retaining my belief in the theory.

That's because you haven't the faintest clue what you're talking about and have blinders permanently glued to your eyes.
You have failed to argue how this behavior is impossible in light of evolution.

asyncritus wrote:These things are just too incredible to have happened by chance mutations and what not.

Well if you say so, then it must be true, mustn't it? Get a fucking clue, your personal ignorance is no evidence whatsoever against the theory of evolution.

asyncritus wrote:Look at it this way. Suppose some aviator is going to make a 25,000 km Pacific round trip, and return to his own house in about 6 months time, on the 6th of October exactly. He doesn't have maps, GPS, satellites or any other navigational aids. And he makes it, on the predicted date without any cheating whatsoever.

Rephrasing your ignorance with a skewed comparison doesn't make it any less ignorant or illogical.

asyncritus wrote:But here are these little birds, with brains the size of a couple of peanuts, doing exactly that, every year.

And I, as a scientist,

You are anything but a scientist.

asyncritus wrote:have to account for the phenomenon.

With evidence and sound logical arguments, so far you have presented neither.

asyncritus wrote:How did it arise? How does it work so infallibly? Where do they get the skill set from?

Yes, that's what you have to research, not cop-out by throwing god at it.

asyncritus wrote:A GPS system is an amazingly clever piece of apparatus. It involves designers, satellites, computers and somebody who has been there before and recorded the navigational data.

Comparing animals and other natural organisms to machinery is one of the most ludicrous arguments out there.

asyncritus wrote:The birds have something like that in their heads somewhere.

As far as I'm a aware birds do not have a link with any of the satellites in orbit around the earth, nor with any other position transmitters.

asyncritus wrote:In their genes, in fact.

Again with the baldfaced assertions.

asyncritus wrote:Evolution says: there's no designer,

Evolution indicates there is no designer nor is there a need for one.

asyncritus wrote:no satellites, no computers and nobody who knew the way. Doesn't that strike you as an absurd proposition?

Yes because satalites and computers are human inventions that are waaaaay younger than birds and other trans migratory animal species.

asyncritus wrote:Instincts are everything!

According to whom? Ah that's right, you, the guy with no peer-reviewed work on evolution whatsoever and who wouldn't recognise a logical fallacy if it hit him with a fact. Yes, your statements are very reliable to be sure.

asyncritus wrote:I make and develop that point forcibly in my book, and I don't want to give the game away here.

Again, you're book has had how many succesful peer-reviews? O yes, that's right 0

asyncritus wrote:As I've shown you, birds do go back to the same nest every year.

What you've failed to do is show how that's impossible in relation to evolution.

asyncritus wrote:As I say, I have serious problems with natural selection, for all the reasons above, and many I haven't given.

That only leaves me with one option.

And as we have explained countless times already, all your objections are based on your own personal incredulity and incredible ignorance concerning logic and evolution.

patient zero wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:Ask question.

Ignore response.

Repeat question.

Handwave away response.

Repeat question.

Terminally fail to address response.

Repeat question.

Make childish comments that fail to address any of the substance of the response.

Repeat question.



Aren't you as tired of this pathetic behaviour as us, Async?

Nah, it's his raison d'être. He's not going to stop falsely claiming that his questions haven't been answered until the mods tell him to stop. And when that does happen the wind will go out of his sails like it did to paarsurrey when he was told to stop lying that no one had answered his questions.

That, or he will try to play the martyr card (pun intended), and claim there's a forum wide conspiracy against him and the Truth™.

I find it interesting that this map of of a "miracle" migratory path again follows the wind currents. Also coast lines where land is near by.

And now we have the Gish Gallop headed towards storks and that some of them use the same nest from one year to another.

Memory! Do you believe that humans are the only creature with memory? Some creatures have very good memories, better than yours.

Spearthrower wrote:Quite - and when you start figuring in the distribution of the continents when birds arose in the Jurassic, the picture becomes clearer:



There's a quite obvious north-south distribution there that largely matches the flight paths seen today, and consequently a rather obvious procession of seasonally available food resources.. Australia and New Zealand are the southern tip of the southern most landmass, so they'd have originally been flying along land masses for most of their early migrations. Over the next millions of years, these islands would gradually move further east... notice how the bird migrations angle west back towards their original destinations?

Of course, none of this is of remote interest to Asyncritus - there's no way to warp it to fit his religiously held convictions of how the world is supposed to work.

Spearthrower: I was quite clearly referring to bar-tailed godwits, not capistrano swallows.

You claim that you clearly referred to the godwits.

Perhaps you'd like to indicate where you did so in this comical post.

Spearthrower wrote:Ask question.

Ignore response.

Repeat question.

Handwave away response.

Repeat question.

Terminally fail to address response.

Repeat question.

Make childish comments that fail to address any of the substance of the response.

Repeat question.

Aren't you as tired of this pathetic behaviour as us, Async?

I missed the scientific content of this reply. Where is it?

aiki wrote:First post on this forum, I hope I'm doing it right I've been reading this thread with interest. Satellite tracking studies on migrating Bar-tailed Godwits do show that the birds make some epic non-stop flights. From this page: http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.as ... 6KYK8jvfpw

'The last leg of E7's journey is the most extraordinary, entailing a non-stop flight of more than eight days and a distance of 7,200 miles, the equivalent of making a roundtrip flight between New York and San Francisco, and then flying back again to San Francisco without ever touching down.

Since they are land birds, godwits like E7 can't stop to eat or drink while flying over open-ocean. The constant flight speeds at which E7 was tracked by satellite indicate that she did not stop on land.' (my bold)

This, like other migratory journeys, doesn't present any problems for evolutionary theory, as already explained by others.

Welcome to the forum. aiki.

You're going to have a very hard time - because you've brought up some facts. The assembled multitude doesn't like those and prefers the unsupported speculation parading under the name of evolution.

I note that your second post does the same thing. Keep doing this, but watch your back.

asyncritus wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:Ask question.

Ignore response.

Repeat question.

Handwave away response.

Repeat question.

Terminally fail to address response.

Repeat question.

Make childish comments that fail to address any of the substance of the response.

Repeat question.

Aren't you as tired of this pathetic behaviour as us, Async?

I missed the scientific content of this reply. Where is it?

Haha, is that the best you can come up with? Spearthrower's paraphrase was spot-on. You aren't INTERESTED in scientific content.

asyncritus wrote:

aiki wrote:First post on this forum, I hope I'm doing it right I've been reading this thread with interest. Satellite tracking studies on migrating Bar-tailed Godwits do show that the birds make some epic non-stop flights. From this page: http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.as ... 6KYK8jvfpw

'The last leg of E7's journey is the most extraordinary, entailing a non-stop flight of more than eight days and a distance of 7,200 miles, the equivalent of making a roundtrip flight between New York and San Francisco, and then flying back again to San Francisco without ever touching down.

Since they are land birds, godwits like E7 can't stop to eat or drink while flying over open-ocean. The constant flight speeds at which E7 was tracked by satellite indicate that she did not stop on land.' (my bold)

This, like other migratory journeys, doesn't present any problems for evolutionary theory, as already explained by others.

Welcome to the forum. aiki.

You're going to have a very hard time - because you've brought up some facts. The assembled multitude doesn't like those and prefers the unsupported speculation parading under the name of evolution.

I note that your second post does the same thing. Keep doing this, but watch your back.

I guess that's why you missed the last sentence in his post, genious. In the eye of the beholder and all that.

Oh by the way, "I missed the scientific content of this reply. Where is it?".

asyncritus wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:Ask question.

Ignore response.

Repeat question.

Handwave away response.

Repeat question.

Terminally fail to address response.

Repeat question.

Make childish comments that fail to address any of the substance of the response.

Repeat question.

Aren't you as tired of this pathetic behaviour as us, Async?

I missed the scientific content of this reply. Where is it?

You missed the obvious fact that this isn't a scientific comment, but rather a summary of your disingenuous behaviour on this thread. Not every post has to contain scientific dissertations.

asyncritus wrote:

aiki wrote:First post on this forum, I hope I'm doing it right I've been reading this thread with interest. Satellite tracking studies on migrating Bar-tailed Godwits do show that the birds make some epic non-stop flights. From this page: http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.as ... 6KYK8jvfpw

'The last leg of E7's journey is the most extraordinary, entailing a non-stop flight of more than eight days and a distance of 7,200 miles, the equivalent of making a roundtrip flight between New York and San Francisco, and then flying back again to San Francisco without ever touching down.

Since they are land birds, godwits like E7 can't stop to eat or drink while flying over open-ocean. The constant flight speeds at which E7 was tracked by satellite indicate that she did not stop on land.' (my bold)

This, like other migratory journeys, doesn't present any problems for evolutionary theory, as already explained by others.

Welcome to the forum. aiki.

You're going to have a very hard time - because you've brought up some facts. The assembled multitude doesn't like those and prefers the unsupported speculation parading under the name of evolution.

I note that your second post does the same thing. Keep doing this, but watch your back.

Still haven't looked in the mirror yet, have you?
Really I don't know whether to feel sick or laugh at your hypocritical and disingenuous posts.

Oldskeptic wrote:

I find it interesting that this map of of a "miracle" migratory path again follows the wind currents. Also coast lines where land is near by.

You're not suggesting that it's the wind that takes them round the Pacific ocean, are you? To arrive at their own nests on nearly the same day every time? Strange wind that.

Any more that it's the ocean currents that take the young eels back into the rivers and reservoirs that they came from.

I hoped for better things from you.

And no, I will not subsidise supporters of evolution. But thank you for the offer anyway.

But to repeat the original questions. The birds are exhibiting extraordinary instinctive behaviour.

Where did the behaviour originate, and how did it enter their collective genomes? Any ideas?

asyncritus wrote:

aiki wrote:First post on this forum, I hope I'm doing it right I've been reading this thread with interest. Satellite tracking studies on migrating Bar-tailed Godwits do show that the birds make some epic non-stop flights. From this page: http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.as ... 6KYK8jvfpw

'The last leg of E7's journey is the most extraordinary, entailing a non-stop flight of more than eight days and a distance of 7,200 miles, the equivalent of making a roundtrip flight between New York and San Francisco, and then flying back again to San Francisco without ever touching down.

Since they are land birds, godwits like E7 can't stop to eat or drink while flying over open-ocean. The constant flight speeds at which E7 was tracked by satellite indicate that she did not stop on land.' (my bold)

This, like other migratory journeys, doesn't present any problems for evolutionary theory, as already explained by others.

Welcome to the forum. aiki.

You're going to have a very hard time - because you've brought up some facts. The assembled multitude doesn't like those and prefers the unsupported speculation parading under the name of evolution.

I note that your second post does the same thing. Keep doing this, but watch your back.

You mean this?

aiki wrote:

Hello aiki, welcome to the forum. Hope you enjoy your stay!

Thank you!

Another bird's interesting migratory behaviour may be relevant here. The Blackcap Sylvia atricapilla is a small songbird that visits north-west Europe in summer to breed, and migrate to Iberia and north Africa for the winter. I'm seeing loads of them at my local nature reserve at the moment. Since the 1960s, people have noticed Blackcaps overwintering in Britain, in increasing numbers. Ringing (banding) studies showed that the wintering birds are not British ones that forgot to leave, but have come over from central Europe.

Most Blackcaps from central Europe migrate south-west in winter, to the same locations as the British ones. However, a small but growing number now go NNW and winter in Britain, where they survive remarkably well and exploit back-garden feeding stations.

Captive breeding studies among known SW and NNW migrants show that preferred migratory direction breeds true, indicating that it is a) determined by genes and b) controlled by a small number of genes. As the NNW migrants have a shorter journey, they are back on the breeding grounds before the SW migrants, and so most NNW birds pair up with other NNWers, leaving the SWers to breed among themselves. So, reproductive isolation is happening (in time rather than space) and the two forms are beginning to show small but subtle plumage and structural differences - incipient speciation More here: http://jeb.biologists.org/content/199/1/49.full.pdf and here: http://www.biologie.uni-freiburg.de/dat ... rbio09.pdf

Are you seriously claiming he's making that up? And that studies he's linked don't exist? Are you really going to stoop that low?

asyncritus wrote:

aiki wrote:First post on this forum, I hope I'm doing it right I've been reading this thread with interest. Satellite tracking studies on migrating Bar-tailed Godwits do show that the birds make some epic non-stop flights. From this page: http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.as ... 6KYK8jvfpw

'The last leg of E7's journey is the most extraordinary, entailing a non-stop flight of more than eight days and a distance of 7,200 miles, the equivalent of making a roundtrip flight between New York and San Francisco, and then flying back again to San Francisco without ever touching down.

Since they are land birds, godwits like E7 can't stop to eat or drink while flying over open-ocean. The constant flight speeds at which E7 was tracked by satellite indicate that she did not stop on land.' (my bold)
This, like other migratory journeys, doesn't present any problems for evolutionary theory, as already explained by others.

Welcome to the forum. aiki.

You're going to have a very hard time - because you've brought up some facts. The assembled multitude doesn't like those and prefers the unsupported speculation parading under the name of evolution.

I note that your second post does the same thing. Keep doing this, but watch your back.

I think you missed Aiki's last sentence. Here, I'll bold it for you.

You're going to have a very hard time - because you've brought up some facts. The assembled multitude doesn't like those and prefers the unsupported speculation parading under the name of evolution.

You do realise the facts he posted support the evolutionary view i suppose. (Thus meaning its hardly unsupported!)

asyncritus wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:

I find it interesting that this map of of a "miracle" migratory path again follows the wind currents. Also coast lines where land is near by.

You're not suggesting that it's the wind that takes them round the Pacific ocean, are you?

No, because that would just be ridiculous for birds to follow the wind currents, just like it's impossible that certain turtles and fish species follow oceanic currents.
If you claim it's unimaginable it surely must be so.
Personal incredulity is still a logical fallacy no matter how many times you regurgitate it.

asyncritus wrote:To arrive at their own nests on nearly the same day every time? Strange wind that.

Asinine straw-man.

asyncritus wrote:Any more that it's the ocean currents that take the young eels back into the rivers and reservoirs that they came from.

More, already refuted, straw-man arguments.

asyncritus wrote:I hoped for better things from you.

Trying to intentionally break the FUA?

asyncritus wrote:And no, I will not subsidise supporters of evolution. But thank you for the offer anyway.

But to repeat the original questions. The birds are exhibiting extraordinary instinctive behaviour.

Where did the behaviour originate, and how did it enter their collective genomes? Any ideas?

Again why should he answer you if you are just going to ignore him or dismiss the answer out of hand?

asyncritus wrote: Welcome to the forum. aiki.

You're going to have a very hard time - because you've brought up some facts. The assembled multitude doesn't like those and prefers the unsupported speculation parading under the name of evolution.

I note that your second post does the same thing. Keep doing this, but watch your back.

Dude actually think aiki was agreeing with him!

You'd think someone who's written a whole entire book would be able to comprehend plain English.