Help the gliding snake grow wings

Evolution “…is as much a fact as the heat of the sun…”– Richard Dawkins

Unfortunately, what evolution no doubt is missing to be such a fact is the actual proof that evolution can do what its supporters claim it has done and can do…
Simply pointing to a fully developed organism and saying – “evolution did” – is just as good a claim as saying – “God did it, or ID must have done it”- unless there is some kind of falsifiability for the claims…Otherwise, such claims remain in the realm of optimism bias, blind faith, or simply science-fiction…and give science bad name at the same time…

Since we have so many evolution experts posting on TSZ blog who are convinced that evolution did it, they should have no problem telling us all skeptics of evolutionary theory how to help a gliding snake to grow wings…

After all if the evolutionary theory is true, gliding snakes must have not only already evolved the ability to glide from heights 100 meters tall and since according to many world class experts here all 10 billion species on earth have not only evolved from a common ancestor but they are still evolving, the gliding snake must be no  different…

All the snake needs is a bit of help to grow wings sooner than it no doubt would anyways…

Since the mechanism of evolution is well known, let us hear how it can be used to speed up the process of evolution and make the snake grow wings…Since some believe that a dinosaur could be, and will be, evolved by using gene manipulation, or if a 10 pound land walking doglike mammal was able to evolve into a 50 ton aquatic fish-like creature, like a whale, it should be a piece of cake for our evolutionary experts here to tell us what and how to do it to help a gliding snake to grow some useful appendages that could help it to fly like a bird…

After all, no one should be expected to believe the evolutionary theory just based on pure speculations, when everything that there is to know about evolution is available, including its creative mechanism with 10 billion of species evolving, and nobody doing anything about using this scientific knowledge to shut all the evolutionary skeptics up once and for all, by  proving that evolution can really do what so many of its believers are sure it has done and is doing now…

The issue of evolutionary falsifiability seems even greater ever since many creationists have been doing their own experimentations using evolutionary mechanisms that have proven futile at creating anything new… WE. Lonnig is an experimental geneticist who has been doing plant mutational breeding for over 30 years at Max Planck Institute and even formed the law of recurrent variation that  basically proves that mutations can’t create what evolution supporters claim it has and can do. His experiments, and many others, have proven one thing:

evolution can’t create anything new, like new body plans.

Dr. Lonnig’s experiments have confirmed what has been known for over 100 years: mutations can create the same organism, a defective organism or a dead organism.
So, to help the gliding snake to grow wings by speeding up the evolutionary process would be a great opportunity for evolution supporters to redeem themselves and show that their beliefs are not supported by their imagination ONLY…

So, let’s speed up evolution and help the gliding snake grow winds and fly like bird!

We are all ears, are we evolutionary skeptics? 😉

BTW: I have a feeling that we are going to hear a lot of excuses, accusations and so on… I hope that this OP will not turn out to be another fiasco for evolution believers where they will resort to bulling to try to prove their point rather than to actual evidence…
After all, if such evidence exists, why would evolution supporters keep it to themselves and resort to bulling their theory into the education system?
Scientific facts don’t need tyranny for skeptics to believe it, do they???
Otherwise its no different than Nazisms or Communism or any other oppressive ideology or belief system…

56 thoughts on “Help the gliding snake grow wings

  1. Lonnig is an experimental geneticist who has been doing plant mutational breeding for over 30 years at Max Planck Institute and even formed the law of recurrent variation that basically proves that mutations can’t create what evolution supporters claim it has and can do. His experiments, and many others, have proven one thing:

    evolution can’t create anything new, like new body plans.”

    Thirty years of experiments is not proof of anything. We accept the fact that plate tectonics is responsible for creating the Rockies and the Himalayas, yet nobody has ever seen a mountain being formed.

  2. Let’s see.

    The snake needs to fly, so it should evolve wings.

    That’s guided evolution. The people who propose guided evolution are creationists.

    So I guess J-Mac is now attempting to debunk creationists.

  3. If someone could show J-Mac a laboratory procedure by which snakes could be rapidly evolved to develop wings, he would say “But humans were involved… this is not evolution, it is creation. It is engineering that required an intelligent designer.”

  4. dazz: Evolutionists of the world! help J-Mac grow a brain. pretty please!

    That’s feat not even a divine being could accomplish.

  5. Remember everyone: every theory that can’t be verified by experimentation is junk… Even Einstein knew it and he had made several attempts to make SR and GTR work… but it didn’t work with QM…
    However, Einstein’s GR theory still works well in the physical world today…most of the times…

  6. Fair Witness:
    If someone could show J-Mac a laboratory procedure by which snakes could be rapidly evolved to develop wings,he would say “But humans were involved… this is not evolution, it is creation.It is engineering that required an intelligent designer.”

    The IF is a problem though…Don’t you think? I’d say more:
    Can it? So, your if is meaningless unless the “CAN” can be demonstrated…

    This means you will not provide any valuable input into this conversation…which is expected…

  7. J-Mac: The IF is a problem though…Don’t you think? I’d say more:
    Can it? So, your if is meaningless unless the “CAN” can be demonstrated…

    This means you will not provide any valuable input into this conversation…which is expected…

    I think I just did contribute. You did not deny that your reaction would be just as I stated. That speaks volumes.

  8. dazz:
    Evolutionists of the world! help J-Mac grow a brain. pretty please!

    Ever since your embarrassment with the okapi evolution, I noticed that you have lost your confidence not only about your limited knowledge about evolution, you also decided to pretend that you are not a homosexual….
    Are you “smoking” too much? Hashish is bad for you, did you know that? It ruins your brain…

  9. Acartia:
    Lonnig is an experimental geneticist who has been doing plant mutational breeding for over 30 years at Max Planck Institute and even formed the law of recurrent variation thatbasically proves that mutations can’t create what evolution supporters claim it has and can do. His experiments, and many others, have proven one thing:


    evolution can’t create anything new, like new body plans.”

    Thirty years of experiments is not proof of anything. We accept the fact that plate tectonics is responsible for creating the Rockies and the Himalayas, yet nobody has ever seen a mountain being formed.

    Good point! I’m glad you have nothing to say to defend your faith…

  10. Neil Rickert: The snake needs to fly, so it should evolve wings.

    That’s guided evolution. The people who propose guided evolution are creationists.

    The snake needed wings, so wings evolved. That’s evolution in a nutshell Neil. You really do need to read more.

  11. Neil Rickert:
    Let’s see.

    The snake needs to fly, so it should evolve wings.

    That’s guided evolution.The people who propose guided evolution are creationists.

    So I guess J-Mac is now attempting to debunk creationists.

    Have you ever heard of selective pressure? It should be your life you ….

  12. Mung:
    I don’t understand the OP.

    Have you ever???
    Stimulants have a mood lowering effect in the end…

  13. J-Mac: Good point! I’m glad you have nothing to say to defend your faith…

    Does this mean that you don’t believe that plate tectonics are responsible for mountain formation?

    Evolution and mountain formation suffer from the same weakness. They are both based on short term observations extrapolated over long time periods.

    Why do you question evolutiin’s extrapolations but not the extrapolations of plate tectonics? Or do you think that god created the mountains as they are now and seeded them with marine fossils to fuck with our minds?

  14. Mung: The snake needed wings, so wings evolved. That’s evolution in a nutshell Neil. You really do need to read more.

    Then you should start reading something other that your church’s pamphlets on evolution.

  15. Mung,

    That’s not how I understand evolution.

    Mutations resulted in some changes in the snake, and the snake found ways to benefit from those changes. That’s how I understand it. Need is not involved. Taking advantage of opportunities is involved.

    On J.J. Gibson’s account of perception, taking advantage of opportunities (affordances) that show up is what perception is all about. And that’s what evolution. It is a kind of perception for the biosphere. And for those ID proponents who think intelligence is needed — if there is a form of perception then there is a form of intelligence. It just doesn’t happen to work quite the same way as conscious humans experience it.

  16. Acartia: Then you should start reading something other that your church’s pamphlets on evolution.

    Mung’s comment is the dumbest I’ve seen from someone who is taken seriously here. It’s like my uncle in law who formed no permanent memories after an aneurism.

  17. petrushka: Mung’s comment is the dumbest I’ve seen from someone who is taken seriously here. It’s like my uncle in law who formed no permanent memories after an aneurism.

    Where have you been?

  18. J-Mac: Have you ever heard of selective pressure?

    I often say that I am not a Darwinist. I’m not a fan of selectionist explanations.

    The weeds in my garden are not there because of selection pressures. They are there because the garden provided an opportunity for them to survive. And biology tends to exploit opportunities that it finds. Weeding my garden should be a selection pressure against the weeds, but they keep coming back.

    I look for opportunism, rather than selectionism, as the basis for evolution.

  19. Just to let everyone know, that there are some X-rays of the flying snake that I wasn’t aware of that might prove my assumptions wrong…Someone just contacted me about that there are intermediates between snakes and gliding snakes and gliding snakes and birds…I’m investing it …I will let you know the details asap…

  20. Neil Rickert: That’s not how I understand evolution.

    Mutations resulted in some changes in the snake, and the snake found ways to benefit from those changes. That’s how I understand it. Need is not involved.

    That is the way it is supposed to be. But if you read the actual papers you can get a different idea entirely.

  21. petrushka: Mung’s comment is the dumbest I’ve seen from someone who is taken seriously here.

    Wow. I am taken seriously here? I may have to rethink things.

  22. J-Mac: However, Einstein’s GR theory still works well in the physical world today…most of the times…

    Like 7 out of 12 of the times to be more specific and mathematical about it.

  23. J-Mac:
    Just to let everyone know, that there are some X-rays of the flying snakethat I wasn’t aware of that might prove my assumptions wrong…Someone just contacted me about that there are intermediates between snakes and gliding snakes and gliding snakes and birds…I’m investing it …I will let you know the details asap…

    If it looks like a good investment, please let at least a few of the rest of us in on it!!

  24. Oh J-Mac. Look how far you’ve come. It was only last year when you asked when snakes were going to become aquatic. Seems like you actually learned something since that time: to check whether the adaptations you declare to be impossible already exist. We are all very proud of you.

  25. Acartia: Thirty years of experiments is not proof of anything.

    Of course!
    What’s your experimental experience? How about Dawkins’? Joe Felesnstain’s? John Harshman’s? Larry Moran’s? PZ. Myers’? Dan Grour’s?
    Please provide links to the experiments one of these people performed that gets even close to what Dr. Lonnig did.
    Then we will talk…

  26. Neil Rickert:
    Let’s see.

    The snake needs to fly, so it should evolve wings.

    That’s guided evolution.The people who propose guided evolution are creationists.

    So I guess J-Mac is now attempting to debunk creationists.

    Neil,
    You wrote this comment because you had seen the OP I was working on that does challenge some creationists, including Dr. Lonnig…
    I don’t think you should disclose this information. If I were like other people, I’d complain to you know who…
    I emailed Dr. Lonnig to find out his exact stand on creationism, so until I find that out, I will not post the OP. I try to respect people who try to respect others… I have no quarrel with Dr. Lonnig, though I do disagree with him on some issue, such as flightless birds…

  27. Fair Witness:
    If someone could show J-Mac a laboratory procedure by which snakes could be rapidly evolved to develop wings,he would say “But humans were involved… this is not evolution, it is creation.It is engineering that required an intelligent designer.”

    Why don’t prove the opposite? Why don’t prove that life can create itself in a laboratory when the conditions are just right?
    Claiming that evolutionary manipulation by intelligent scientists without any success prove only one thing: random processes are smarter than intelligent scientists. Therefore, all the Nobel Prizes should be returned to dumb luck…

  28. J-Mac: You wrote this comment because you had seen the OP I was working on that does challenge some creationists, including Dr. Lonnig…

    Actually, I hadn’t. I may have seen it, but I did not look closely.

    I made that comment about “guided evolution” because that’s what this current topic seemed to be arguing.

  29. Neil Rickert: Actually, I hadn’t.I may have seen it, but I did not look closely.

    I made that comment about “guided evolution” because that’s what this current topic seemed to be arguing.

    How did you get the impression that his topic was about guided evolution, Neil?

  30. Corneel:
    Oh J-Mac. Look how far you’ve come. It was only last year when you asked when snakes were going to become aquatic. Seems like you actually learned something since that time: to check whether the adaptations you declare to be impossible already exist. We are all very proud of you.

    There’s one in the oven regarding singing snakes, I understand.

  31. walto: There’s one in the oven regarding singing snakes, I understand.

    No flying hellvolution? There has to be an explanation why snakes like to swim, dig, and fly at the same time… hellvolution did it again…Why would anybody without Darwin’s religion even question that?

  32. All I know is that nobody in the evolutionary propaganda industry can challenge this issue..
    It is because evolutionary theory is not based on experimental facts. It is based on beliefs and philosophy that just doesn’t add up…
    If you don’t like it, please provide the experimental evidence…
    Otherwise… we don’t accept it..

  33. dazz:
    Evolutionists of the world! help J-Mac grow a brain. pretty please!

    After the okapi embarrassment, gazz has been trying hard to recover his reputation he never had but a closet homosexual who denies his evolutionary tendencies that will make him infertile and therefore contradict the theory he had chosen to believe in the first place..

  34. J-Mac: No flying hellvolution? There has to be an explanation why snakes like to swim, dig, and fly at the same time… hellvolution did it again…Why would anybody without Darwin’s religion even question that?

    You’re right J-mac. It couldn’t be evolution. It had to be a supreme being who couldn’t make up his flippin’ mind what he wanted to create so he made a creature that is just barely able to do any of those three things kind of half-ass.

    Brilliant.

  35. Fair Witness: You’re right J-mac.It couldn’t be evolution.It had to be a supreme being who couldn’t make up his flippin’ mind what he wanted to create so he made a creature that is just barely able to do any of those three things kind of half-ass.

    Brilliant.

    I don’t really care what you or keiths believe…

  36. The gliding snake is a beauty of the remarkable design… If anybody disagrees, I would like them to make any other snake to evolve and glide. at least, since we already know no evolutionary process can make a snake develop anything that even resembles wings…

  37. Acartia:
    Lonnig is an experimental geneticist who has been doing plant mutational breeding for over 30 years at Max Planck Institute and even formed the law of recurrent variation thatbasically proves that mutations can’t create what evolution supporters claim it has and can do. His experiments, and many others, have proven one thing:


    evolution can’t create anything new, like new body plans.”

    Thirty years of experiments is not proof of anything. We accept the fact that plate tectonics is responsible for creating the Rockies and the Himalayas, yet nobody has ever seen a mountain being formed.

    Creationists don’t accept this. these mts were created suddenly by smashing continents or themselves bumping into themselves.

  38. The bible mentions the flying snakes of arabia. Herodotus did too. they most likely also were gliding snakes from mt peak to peak. is it possible some exist still in remote areas of northern Saudi arabia?

    A snake can’t evolve wings by evolutionary means. its a humbug.
    a mutation just arriving in time would need another after it and so on.
    its impossible.
    How did the gliding snakes get their abilities. This must be from some innate triggering mechanism to play upon its anatomy. then the snake must make the first leap. lots of creatures glide actually.

    Yes evolutionism just loses credibility when you think about.
    Its time is over as its taken on in “professional” circles.
    its an embarrassment.

  39. While on the topic of the OP we could also try to help bears to evolve into whales (apparently Darwin proposed this transition was possible).

    https://evolutionnews.org/2018/07/from-bears-to-whales-a-difficult-transition/

    Or the Japanese pearl divers who for hundreds of generations have been spending most of the day under water…

    How much more selective pressure does evolution need to prove it can do something? Can it do anything, for Darwin’s sake?!

  40. J-Mac:

    While on the topic of the OP we could also try to help bears to evolve into whales (apparently Darwin proposed this transition was possible)…

    Or the Japanese pearl divers who for hundreds of generations have been spending most of the day under water…

    I think dazz’s project is more urgent:

    Evolutionists of the world! help J-Mac grow a brain. pretty please!

  41. keiths:
    J-Mac:

    I think dazz’s project is more urgent:

    Doesn’t it bother you that the theory you have so trusted can’t be defended by experimentation?

    Maybe you and dazz should evolve a brain because whatever you use now to reason obviously isn’t working…

    How can you be so naïve?
    Or I should probably ask, why would you choose to be so naïve?

  42. Mung:
    There have been and continue to be evolutionary experiments.

    Absolutely! The question remains: What are the results?
    The predictions similar to Jurassic Park have remained in the realm of science fiction, rather then science… Why? Because the information for body plans is not in DNA… So, gene manipulations, mutation breeding can’t produce what Darwinists hoped it would… If it did, we would see at least some real results by now…

  43. J-Mac: … the information for body plans is not in DNA… …

    Neil Shubin would strongly disagree with you.

  44. J-Mac: The predictions similar to Jurassic Park have remained in the realm of science fiction, rather then science… Why?

    Maybe because Jurassic Park is supposed to be fiction.

    If the experimental evidence does not meet your expectations, maybe the problem is with your expectations.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.