Posted: Apr 30, 2012 5:06 pm
asyncritus wrote:Spearthrower. I owe you a debunking, and here it is.What do you mean 'get into the genome'? What does that actually mean? It's already in the genome, it's the expression of the genome... it's not magically floating around in potential bird space waiting to be alighted on.
Since it was not present in the UCA, then where is it?
Why do you have such trouble quoting properly? And no, this isn't a trivial point, it's rather hard to quote your posts if they aren't using proper quotation themselves. This is not debunking, this is posing arguments from personal incredulity in the form of questions.
asyncritus wrote:There's not a map written in DNA with an alarm clock saying - move north 2 miles on October 3rd, land, eat, then fly 2 miles further.
That’s curious, and not consistent with the facts.
How? How is it not consistent with the facts, once again you are making baseless assertions.
asyncritus wrote:Let me remind you that the swallows arrive at the specific location in Capistrano on the 18th March precisely, every year, and leave on Oct 23rd. They must, therefore, have a GPS and a calendar built in somewhere.
That's a non-sequitur and therefore once again begging the question.
asyncritus wrote:Instead, there would have been variation in the population. Some birds would have stayed where they were and eked out a living on sub-optimal grounds and consequently gained adaptive traits that improved their survivability, others would have travelled further and further in search of food.
I don’t think anybody disputes this.
Then why quote it?
asyncritus wrote:Over the generations, those birds whose genetic traits encouraged this behaviour would be retained, as they'd be passed onto their surviving offspring. Over the generations, these traits would have become more stringent with respect to the changing environment. They tied themselves into a survival strategy, and consequently there would be a strong selection pressure on their ability to traverse the world in this way as it's precisely how they survive.
But I see no explanation of
a. how a specific geographical location 7,800 miles away becomes programmed into the genome and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_migration#Orientation_and_navigation
Notice especially the chapter called orientation and navigation.
asyncritus wrote:b. how a specific date becomes programmed in at the same time.
You really can't understand that a combination of changing temperatures and the reproduction cycle incite the animals to migrate?
asyncritus wrote:If you said ‘specific season’, I might agree with you, but a specific date? No chance.
Since you have failed to support this with either a sound logical argument or verifiable evidence, this is still an argument from personal incredulity and still as illogical and pathetic as when you first brought it up.
asyncritus wrote:The return journey also presents a difficulty. How do the birds acquire the information needed to return, since the geographical and astronomical features are now in reverse order?
More arguments from incredulity poorly hid as questions.
asyncritus wrote:And then they pass down the ACQUIRED information to their offspring. Not allowed.
Why? Because you don't like it? Really dismissing things out of hand like this is futile it only shows you aren't interested in the explanations only in confirming your limited view of the world.
asyncritus wrote:Further, it must be obvious to you that a journey of 7,800 miles poses an enormous threat to their survival.
Not as much as staying in their original position or in the area in between.
asyncritus wrote:Whether the swallows fly entirely over water is not clear to me, but the godwit flies 7000 miles, and the plover flies 2,800 miles entirely over water, with no stopping points possible.
And? This only increases their chances of survival as the only dangers are other birds or planes.
asyncritus wrote:Therefore those migrations at least were not undertaken bit by bit.There were simply no places to stop.
I fail to see how this is a problem.
asyncritus wrote:That means that gradual evolution and natural selection played no part in the production of these behaviours.
Non-sequitur, the time part of natural selection and evolution refers to changes within species, not the time it takes for animals to migrate.
You haven't debunked anything, all you have posted are baseless assertions, arguments of incredulity and gross misrepresentations of evolutionary theory.
It won't fly, no matter how many times you repeat your dislike or ignorance on the subject, unless you can present actual sound arguments and/or verifiable evidence all you have is personal incredulity. Which is neither logical nor smart.
asyncritus wrote:So consider your explanation debunked.
