Posted: Feb 26, 2014 11:18 pm
Sendraks wrote:questioner121 wrote:Don't you think according to evolution they should have all these great traits especially since their ancestors supposedly had them?
Nope. Because as people have tried to explain to you (not that you've paid attention), it isn't efficient to keep traits you don't need. If not being able to fly doesn't put you at any sort of disadvantage in terms of survival of your genes, why have the energy intensive morphology necessary for flight?
To say this is an oversimplification is perhaps understating things, but as grasping more complex explanations appears to be beyond, we'll start small.
This is not what we see in nature. There are many animals with traits that are not needed. This is the think with evolutionists, they see everything as being logical but when they encounter something that's no logical they'll make something up like "oh, it's neutral so the trait sticks around" or "there is no disadvantage" or "there must have been a use for it in the past and it's going through a transition", it seems there is no way if falsifying anything since in evolution absolutely anything is possible. If a common ancestor has a really good trait and it's now gone - it was no longer needed. If the animal still has the trait - it got it from it's ancestor, etc. etc.
Can't you non believers see this? You can make absolutely whatever bull you want and then just point to some other data to support it when that data is to do with another species for a specified amount of time. And then you think the evidence is there and that makes you feel all smug. Can't you see nature is bizarre and contains unpredictable phenomena amongst expected phenomena?
Sometimes I think I'm getting somewhere with you guys but now I think I need something beyond what can be explained by your wishful logical thinking.