If evolution theory is true then why we don't grow wings? Not even a little feathers?

Question

I believe everyone is thinking of flying without machine since the Adam's period of time

I also learned that evolution can even take place in about 100 years like the case of a species butterfly in UK i think.

The theory of evolution claims that species continuously evolve into other species. But when we compare living things to their fossils, we see that they have remained unchanged for millions of years. This fact is a clear evidence that falsifies the claims of evolutionists.

The living honeybee is no different than its fossil relative, which is millions of years old.

The 135 million year old dragon fly fossil is no different than its modern counterparts.

A comparison of ant fossil aged 100 million years and an ant living in our day clearly indicates that ants do not have any evolutionary history.

Answer 1

Why would we grow wings? They'd do us no good because of our weight and the fact that we are completely unideal for flying.

Just because evolution is a continuous process doesn't mean all things will evolve or all things evolve at the same pace. Just because there are no visible changes in the fossils of some species for millions of years does not mean changes did not occure within the rest of the animal. Perhaps modern crocodiles have a vascular system different from prehistoric crocodiles due to changes in water temperture or climate. Perhaps perhistoric bees had a different venom composition because they were stinging different things.

By the way, there are many different species of bees.

Answer 2

Evolution is not a directed process. Creatures don't evolve because they decide to. Evolution is the net result of the combination of the processes of mutation and natural selection.

Mutation is happening constantly. We have special terminology for certain undesired mutations, we call them birth defects and cancer. Some of these things happen because of natural processes (e.g. aging) and some due to artificial causes (e.g. fetal alcohol syndrome, mothers who smoke during pregnancy, exposure to the radiation of a nuclear bomb). However, mutation is random, a roll of the dice as it were.

The theory or principle of natural selection says that those members of a species who are best adapted to their environment will survive to propagate (reproduce). The genes of the survivors, those "selected", will be passed to successive generations.

Evolution occurs when mutations are reproduced through the process of natural selection. The evolution of a species may take millions of years. It can be helped along by cataclysmic events like epidemics, which wipe out large numbers of a species who don't have the mutation.

I am giving you the links to three sites which discuss blind cave fish. The first gives a cogent explanation as to the reason that blind fish would have developed in the darkness of underground caverns. You will have to excuse his rationalization for the process of mutation as a curse and his "convenient" forgetfulness in concluding that the fish gets more simple rather than more complex. His bias toward creationism is obvious.

The second article mentions the possible reason that the fish has evolved to an albino state.

Finally, the third article discusses the enhancement of the fish's lateral line system, and senses of taste and smell, which the author of article one conveniently forgot in order to "disprove" evolution. Although as the one author indicated, the fish's optic sensors became less complex, its compensating systems became more complex, thus nullifying the authors point.

Unfortunately, there is a faulty assumption in use that says that all systems must get more complex in order for evolution to be valid. Let's take for example the discovery of a disease that is so quick and so devastating that it wipes out 90% of all humans who contract it and that this disease in no way correlates to level of intelligence. When this epidemic ended, the average intelligence (complexity) of human brains could increase, decrease or remain the same, depending on how many of each type of person remained alive at the end of the epidemic. Does this disprove evolution, no, as the remaining population would evolve as a species more resistant to the disease which caused the epidemic.

Assuming that the processes that result in evolution will always produce creatures that are more complex is like assuming that the stock market will always rise, a fallacy. Just because the results aren't always what you would like doesn't mean there is no stock market or that evolution does not exist.

Answer 3

You are viewing a theory without the context of understanding the theory or even understanding the context of immense time periods in the theory.

Just because YOU wish to fly doesn;t mean that your children grow feathers/. How absurd. And how absurd that you project your irrational theory on a perfectly good hypothesis of evolution in a weak attempt to discredit it.

Now that I have calmed down, I will answer the question a bit more objectively and in simple words, which I suspect is all you may be capable of understanding.

The theory of evolution considers that evolution happens through mutations that evolve slowly over millions of years. There is evidence that life has existed for millions of years and the fossil remains of that life show that subtle changes happened to create various specied of life. Those features that evolved and were useless eventually disappeared. Can this be proven? NO...but the evndence lying around is consistent and irrefutable. From my point of view, if evolution is not a viable theory, then God has a remarkable sense of humor.

To the apparent point of whether your english translation of the bible states that life started a few thousand years ago and any evolution would start then. I doubt it. I would follow God's word as more accurate than the human translation of man's transcription of God's word (The Bible). God's word is transcribed in nature all around us; He speaks in the elegant mathematics, physical laws of nature and the consistent nature of the universe, which we are mere infants to understand. God's laws and our mandate to live on this earth are clearly spelled in the Bible, but clearly he did not use the Bible to explain the intracacies of science. Don't confuse the two.

As I look at the Creation hymn spelled out in Genesis, I see an attempt to explain the complex intracies of the universe to a simple people who could not understand more. To that end, it is like a father explaining where babies come from to his 4 year old. Therefore, I apologize for being so terse earlier...God is clearly explaining creation to simple people through Genesis even now

Answer 4

I think you're misunderstanding the theory of evolution - as people have said here, the core of evolution is adaptation to an environment through natural selection. Evolution has no goal - species don't have to evolve into winged creatures. As a species we don't have the need to grow wings or feathers because we've fared quite well in gathering food and making houses and living in the ground - if we could only eat flying birds then it would be better for us to grow wings and fly after them.

Answer 5

Your claim that the forms are unchanged is false. They are relatively unchanged, but small changes relative to modern species are present. You don't change the things that work, but there is no form in nature that is "perfect". An 80 million year old ant with wasplike features is evidence that they have evolved. In everything you said, you got nothing right.

Answer 6

It doesn't matter whether we have a desire to grow wings or not. If that was the case I think we men would all have much larger penises.

Sorry to say this, but since you ask such a question it is quite obvious you don't grap the theory of Evolution.

Evolutionary change comes from survival. Whatever lives, thrives; whatever dies, disappears. The environment will determine what characteristics pay off.

Answer 7

Evolution take millions and millions of years to occur and we don't evolve to get something we 'want' we change in order for the species to adapt to the lands around us and the things we don't use anymore go away

Answer 8

If the theory of evolution is true, then why havent we grown wings, or perhaps even little feathers.. ... ... I think that would be taking a step backward... .... ...if we were, at some point, "ape like" why would you want to became a bird? The human brain, technology has made it possible to do ANYTHING. Birds fly into windows.

Answer 9

Well, it took a while to get us where we are now. Let's not rush a million-year process.

Answer 10

Evolution is the ability to adapt to your environment. What benefit would wings be to our survival?