Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Bird Brains, GN&C, and ID

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

For many years I was an avid hang glider pilot, and one of my specialties in aerospace R&D is Guidance, Navigation and Control software development for precision-guided airdrop systems.

During many of my hang glider flights I had the opportunity to observe, from an unusual perspective, hawks in their native environment — the air. Flying wingtip to wingtip at the same airspeed, one gets a profound appreciation for these amazing creatures and their GN&C.

On a number of my hang glider flights, hawks came up close. They always seemed to be curious about me, flying my lumbering 32-foot-wingspan Dacron and aluminum aircraft. Up this close, I could observe the subtle adjustments they made in their primary feathers to compensate for the turbulence in the air, and they would glance furtively at me.

And they like to show off! I’ve seen this many times. On one occasion a redtail hawk who was flying with me folded his wings, went into a high-speed dive, performed several really amazing aerobatic maneuvers, and then pulled up and flew side by side with me again, moving his head and looking over at me as if to ask, “Can you do that?”

It is fascinating to watch birds land, especially in swaying tree branches in a gusty wind. Their GN&C is completely amazing.

Did all of this aerodynamic and control-system technology — which much integrate the visual system, tactile system, neurological system, muscular system, etcetera and etcetera — come about by random variation and natural selection? Please give me a break. I might not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but I’m not that dull.

The real question is, What in biological systems can be explained by RV&NS? The obvious answer is, not very much at all.

Comments
Just as it’s a mistake to think that “friendship evangelism” can substitute for the preaching of the Gospel, it’s likewise a mistake to think a spiritual battle can be fought and won on intellectual grounds.
As it is a mistake to consider that intellectual battles can be won on spiritual grounds.Apollos
March 2, 2008
March
03
Mar
2
02
2008
11:03 PM
11
11
03
PM
PDT
"...the excuse removal application of natural proofs undoubtedly serves a purpose... I for one will not elect to define for God what He can use to drive His detractors into the arms of their Savior." - Apollos I really have no interest in being contentious here, but I think the "excuse removal application of natural proofs" is generally over-rated. And I'm certainly not defining what God can and can't use to accomplish His ends -- He's done that for us: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent... hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men." 1 Cor 1:18-25 "For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ." - 2 Cor 10:3-5 "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." - Eph 6:12 Just as it's a mistake to think that "friendship evangelism" can substitute for the preaching of the Gospel, it's likewise a mistake to think a spiritual battle can be fought and won on intellectual grounds.Gerry Rzeppa
March 2, 2008
March
03
Mar
2
02
2008
10:54 PM
10
10
54
PM
PDT
Gerry,
I don’t think our adversaries will soon be healed — or converted — by mere formulae.
Perhaps not, but the excuse removal application of natural proofs undoubtedly serves a purpose. Since we know that natural proofs exist, we can infer a purpose for their design. I for one will not elect to define for God what He can use to drive His detractors into the arms of their Savior.Apollos
March 2, 2008
March
03
Mar
2
02
2008
10:01 PM
10
10
01
PM
PDT
Gil, I just read a chapter in a book by Henry Gee on bird evolution. He tries to make a case for naturalistic evolution mainly by arguing that all the necessary ingredients for flight evolved for other reasons. So that the original creatures who became birds found that they had adapted in such a way that they were suited for flight. The rest was down hill. His case is so hard to believe and to me looks like someone trying to shoehorn something that is so improbable but he does not know any other way of doing it. He is committed to naturalistic evolution. Birds needs so many adaptations to fly that they could not have just appeared since selection did not know the little dinosaurs wanted to fly and all the adaptations had be serendipity or in other words an amazing just told story. Some of the adaptations are: - feathers - conversion of fore arms to wings - hollow bones - beaks, not teeth - air sacs to lower density - unique oxygen delivery system that no other animal has - large keeled breast bone to hold strong muscles for flight - wishbone for structural superiority - box like body for protection against force of wings None of it included all the GN & C. or the fact that birds are warm blooded and have 4 chambered hearts that reptiles do not. There is a movement to have dinosaurs have some of these features but mainly are wishful thinking.jerry
March 2, 2008
March
03
Mar
2
02
2008
09:06 PM
9
09
06
PM
PDT
"Did all of this aerodynamic and control-system technology — which must integrate the visual system, tactile system, neurological system, muscular system, etcetera and etcetera — come about by random variation and natural selection?" - Gil Dodgen Obviously not. And the suggestion that it might have, I contend, indicates either a radical defect in the gray matter, or a willful and blasphemous denial of our God-given ability to intuitively recognize such examples of design. I don't think our adversaries will soon be healed -- or converted -- by mere formulae.Gerry Rzeppa
March 2, 2008
March
03
Mar
2
02
2008
08:34 PM
8
08
34
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply