Notice, just the flapping, using gears and links [far simpler than the real bird]:
Amazing. END
Comments
Alan Fox writes:
Just in case, everyone is welcome to call in at The Skeptical Zone if only to keep in contact till another venue emerges (heh). It would be a shame to lose touch with everyone when the site closes.
And enable one of the penumbra of attack sites?! Not on my watch. :) Ford Prefect
Just in case, everyone is welcome to call in at The Skeptical Zone if only to keep in contact till another venue emerges (heh). It would be a shame to lose touch with everyone when the site closes. Alan Fox
It's miracle! Seversky
UD still up and working? Alan Fox
AnimatedDust @9,
Show your work.
They never do. That's not their goal.
-Q Querius
FP@ 5: The old personal incredulity trope. Channel Dawkins much? An attempt to stop debate. Why don't you describe the naturalistic, designerless evolution of the flight mechanism in birds, instead? Show your work.
Lame. AnimatedDust
So has Uncommon Descent been fixed? Alan Fox
So has Uncommon Descent been fixed? Alan Fox
FP at 5,
This has nothing to do with personal incredulity. It has to do with the very easy to prove observation that a living thing consists of incredibly complex cells that carry out precise functions that keep it alive and allow it to reproduce. But here, this very valid observation is ignored or denied. relatd
I must have missed the lessons on personal incredulity as a scientific tool in my science classes. Ford Prefect
Relatd, you are right, notice this research effort and their results https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46AFUxm3mMI KF kairosfocus
Years ago, I saw a toy bird take flight. It was quite good. It looked realistic. Those who think such things as birds appeared by accident are quite wrong. The engineering involved is quite complex. relatd
PS, a subtlety on wing feather arrangements https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kztP_XTEPk kairosfocus