Evolving to Fly Whilst in the Air???

Posted: August 24, 2010 by Jonathan in Apologetics, Creation/Evolution

Toucan bird I read a piece on the BBC News website today titled “Space is the final frontier for evolution, study claims” and I thought I’d point something out here. I do not really intend to open up the “evolution vs. intelligent design vs. young earth creationism” debates, I just want to show the blindly circular logic that goes on at times. The study is from a group of PhD students at the University of Bristol in my homeland, England, and they claim that the old survival of the fittest is not the best explanation or catalyst for evolution. Instead, lifeforms need some room to grow.

 Evolution, they say, happens “when animals move into empty areas of living space, not occupied by other animals.” And then they give this awesome example:

“For example, when birds evolved the ability to fly, that opened up a vast range of new possibilities not available to other animals. Suddenly the skies were quite literally the limit, triggering a new evolutionary burst.”

So maybe I’m misreading this, or maybe the author of the article for the BBC is misrepresenting the study, but the following seem to be true of the above statement:

a) Birds could not fly at some point.

b) Birds needed to move into the freedom and space of the skies in order to evolve.

c) Birds evolved to be able to fly into the skies so that they could evolve.

So what were they doing? Using a slingshot for extended periods of the day to spend enough time in the air that their bodies, or their offspring, would catch on and evolve wings so that they could fly up their and evolve some more? Or did they merely use a positive mental attitude and imagine they were up there where the air is rare and will themselves to grow wings?

I know I am biased because I cannot accept evolution as valid for two reasons. Firstly, I believe the Bible says God made distinct kinds of things, and not one kind of thing that happened to morph into other kinds. Secondly, evolution as a theory has no evidential grounds, only posturing and speculation. And really weird, illogical claims in university research studies.

  1. Scott Kistler says:

    Jonathan, I think that the article is saying that once the first birds or bird-like creatures evolved the ability to fly, the open living space of the air allowed for many more types of birds to evolve.

    It’s my understanding that current evolutionary theory holds that birds evolved from reptiles that developed wing- and feather-like structures, so these creatures would have taken flight at some point and which then led to the explosion of different types of that evolved from the earliest bird ancestors.

    I think that theistic evolution is a possibility, but one of the things that is pretty evident in this article is evolution is the assumed framework and an almost magical explanation for everything biological.

  2. Jonathan says:

    I think you have a good point on what the intentions probably were with regard to the theory of the birds evolving. As to your comment on assumptions, I absolutely agree. In fact, whenever I read articles such as this I start going through mentally and editing out any statements based upon unproven assumptions and that often leaves very little factual information. I’m also aware that people could do the same with a lot of what I write, so I try to be careful about throwing stones… normally.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s