Bad News for Creationists: Plausible Abiogenesis Path Found

[_Kevin Graham]

Hoyle's argument against abiogenesis was, at one time, one of the most prominent creationist arguments. To be more specific, Hoyle's "tornado in a junkyard" reasoning was used against the possibility of abiogenesis by natural (unguided) means, followed by an inference to design.

So what? How does this change the fact that you flat out lied by saying over and over again that I'm simply repeating verbatim from creationist sources? You put phrases into quotations like "what good is half a wing"? to reinforce your theory that I am merely borrowing creationist arguments, but I have never uysed that phrase. You're being disingenuous. My challenges to Evolution theory were not designed to refute it, but to make the point that many people accept it and its various aspects on just as much faith as some religious people do.

You also say that I frequently leave the discusson as if you've run me off with logic. I just did a search and the last time we talked about this I left the discussion because it was getting heated between Moniker and myself. She and I were discussing this when she had a meltdown. I left the discussion and later on that week she was banned. You, JSM and Schmo came in afterwards and tried cleaning up her mess, but I never even read those responses.

In didn't matter that he personally was an atheist. In creationist writing, it often was on one of the first things mentioned

You're not addressing the fallacy of your argument. It doesn't matter if creatonists had used Hoyle's analogy as an argument. The fact is it doesn't mean everyone who subsequently uses it, including Hoyle, must be associated with creatonism. You don't even know what creationism is for God's sake. You say a creationist is someone who argues that there is scientific evidence for God. That is not what defines a creationist at all. That is your self-serving construction for well-poisoning purposes. Just google a wiki article on the subject. Here, let me help you:

Creationism is the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) or deities. In relation to the creation-evolution controversy the term creationism is commonly used to refer to religiously motivated rejection of evolution as an explanation of origins.

Creationism in the West is usually based on a literal reading of Genesis 1-2, and in its broad sense covers a wide range of beliefs and interpretations. Through the 19th century the term most commonly referred to direct creation of individual souls, in contrast to traducianism. However, by 1929 in the United States the term became particularly associated with Christian fundamentalist opposition to human evolution and belief in a young Earth

There isn't a damn thing in this article that would qualify me as a creationist. But you need me to be one so badly, because you think name-calling means you don't have to address arguments.

And speakng of Hoyle's analogy, you must be really naïve if you think the atheist apologists have refuted it. I've read the so called "refutations" and the primary objection is that the tornado takes place in one event whereas evolution takes place in gradual steps over the course of thousands of years. Well, no analogy is perfect, but to neutralize this objection a simple modification can be made. So instead of one tornado in one event producing a Boeing 747, lets say a million tornados over a thousand years. You still wouldn't get a Jumbo Jet.

Likewise, I suppose you think Paley has been refuted too? Well of course. Talkorigins has written all kinds of crap responses, but that doesn't make them refutations. You seem to think that when I don't respond to every article you cut and paste, that you've somehow "dismantled" me.

Creationists might also argue that in order to deny the force of their reasoning, atheists had to invent panspermia and believe in that.

Oh they "might" now? So now I'm a creationist based on arguing something that you think a creationist "might" argue as well? You're getting desperate now. The fact is panspermia is a cop-out by some atherists who accept the basic design arguments but don't want to give in. Come to think of it, Francis Crick must also be a creationist since he said life could not have occured spontaneously within the short amount of time it had. Gee, that's a fundamental "creationist" argument, therefore Crick was at one time a creationist.

This specifically was one of the arguments that was used in defense of creationism when it was crushed in the round of court battles in the 1980's. It's still common nowadays too, but no where near the heyday of its use back then. I called you out on creationism in this instance because you followed that same pattern.

So what? It is an associaton fallacy to say anyone using this argument, created by an atheist, must be associated with creationism. If an atheist can come up with it without being a creationists, then why not other theists? I keep nailing you with this point but you continue to evade it:

An association fallacy is an inductive formal fallacy of the type hasty generalization or red herring which asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

Sound familiar? You offer a textbook example of the association fallacy.

I've seen you use Hoyle in this context more than once, but now I'm tasked with using bad search engines and multiple user names to go through.

I only have two user names, but I began discussing this stuff after creating the dartagnan moniker and I have done my own searches for the words Hoyle and Boeing and I've found that I have mentioned Hoyle in other posts, but those had nothing to do with this particular argument. If you can't back up your allegation, just say so, and don't blame it on the search engine.

I said you endorsed anti-evolution writing, which you did.

That isn't specific enough. This is like calling David Bokovoy's post anti-Book of Abraham writing, simply because he disagreed with one apologetic aspect of it. Try again.

You at multiple points in that thread, endorse classic anti-evolution chimeras. In your mind you might be playing Devil's Advocate, but the Kevin in print is saying those are good arguments. When you say this: "the main problem with evolution is that it rests on assumptions that cannot be verified using the scientific method," you are, you know, saying it.

So I must insist there are no problems at all with Evolution theory? That is a religious, fundamentalist position if there ever was one.

And am I right or wrong? You won't say I'm wrong nor will you show I'm wrong. Instead, you'll just call me anti-evolution and rely on a game of sematics over "creationist." That is so Mormon of you. I brought up Karl Popper (who is apparently a genius only when used by atheists) who had to do some mental gymnastics to make evolution fit into the paradigm of science. He believed in it, but he was bothered that it couldn't be considered "science" by the standard scientific method of the day. So instead of concluding it wasn't science, just change the scientific paradigm to make it fit the theory.

To this day you cannot name a single scientific fact that I have rejected. Nowhere. I keep challenging you and others to show me where I have, but you can't. But nevertheless, you continue to accuse me of being anti-science. Talk about an inquisition. Any sign of intellectual dissent, from even the minor aspects of the theory, is met with fierce reprimanding and ridicule.

Again, depending on what is meant by "evolution" there are creationists who believe in it. Micheal Behe comes to mind. In that thread, you also were arguing that evolution might've happened, but then intelligence would have to have something to do with it.

Yes, and that doesn't prevent it from being evolution. Evolution is a process by which life as we know it, evolved into what it is. Science cannot dictate that this process had no designer behind it. It doesn't even pretend to. The closest thing to this is when it says evolution has no purpose.

But what if evidence came forth and scientists began accepting the notion that evolution did have a purpose? Would they have to call it by a completely different name? Of course not. It would still be "evolution". Your problem is that you want to have exclusive rights to the label in applying it to whomever you think accepts everything you do, without question. That isn't very scientific, that is very religious! Do you really think that Kenneth Miller, a Catholic, doesn't believe God created the process of evolution and that God is intelligent?

Wouldn't you suspect there was some intelligence behind that acheivement as well? We are talking about a creature accomplishing flight as a way of life.

Yes, but that isn't necessarily creationism. As I said, creationists are generally those trying to salvage a literal reading of Genesis. They are those who unequivocally reject evolution and generally accept a young earth hypothesis. That you would have to reinvent the label to serve your little smear agenda is pretty pathetic.

I will continue to say you've endorsed creationist reasoning, thus making you a creationist.

That is fallacious reasoning. I know you realize it, but I guess you turned out to be one of those posters who is just too proud to admit being wrong, especially when it is obvious.

Like, arguing, as you do in that thread, that life developing from nonlife requiring an intelligence because, "But if we accept this theory [evolution] as well as the big bang, then the two have to meet at an inevitable point by suggesting that life somehow sprang forth from inorganic matter in a manner that is beyond explanation in the current paradigm. Life doesn't spring forth from nonlife. There has not been a single documented case of this happening anywhere in the world, in recorded history, nor have scientists been able to produce such an experiment in the lab, even when replicating the supposed atmospheric scencarios that are supposed to have been present during the time when life first came about. So how could this have happened after the big bang? The current scientific paradigm will never provide that answer."

As difficult as it might be for you to accept (and I know you merely rely on atheistic apologetic works for your arguments), I have never read a single creationist website. I have never purchased a single creationist book. When I first started talking about evolution about a year ago I presented questions and challenges to the theory as I envisoned them and worked them out in my mind, not because I was "quoting verbatim" some "creationist source." Given the premises of the atheistic arguments, it is hardly surprising that theists come up with the same kinds of arguments in response. It doesn't mean we're all mimicking each other. I was pleasantly surprised to find Alister McGrath arguing in his book, the same things I had already worked out in my mind regarding Dawkins' abuse of peripheral fields of science. When I first heard the multiverse theory as a response to the anthropic principle, my immediate response was exactly as I found it to be in Antony Flew and Dinesh D'Souza. Likewise, similar challenges to evolution theory would naturally be found in various forms, coming from different respondents.

Questions about various modes of travel, diverse respiratory systems, etc are natural questons to any explanation based on natural selection and random mutation. More than 1600 scientists have expressed doubts that these mechanisms can explain all the diversity we see in life, so are they all creationists as well?

I have extensively replied to your arguments in the past.

Oh, where you abandoned the discussion after citing pages and pages of articles from the online atheist's arsenal, talkorigins? Add hypocritical to your character flaws.

One of the two of us has an established history on this board of claiming not to argue something, having someone quote him arguing it, followed by a disappearing act. Which one Kevin? Which one?

I've never been shown to argue something that I denied arguing, your wishful thinking notwithstanding. You're just too anxious to entertain straw man arguments about those "creationists", that you're unwilling to see any middle ground. Browsing through Talkorigins I see the same infatuation with creationists and you're constantly quoting that website. The true hallmark of bigotry is a tendency to see dichotomies. I'm demonstrating that you are lying right now. You cannot substantiate your charges against me. Oh I know, it must be the search engine's fault, right? You managed to dig for stuff on ZLMB (which has the worst engine and no longer lists user names) but you cannot back up your claims that I have used Hoyle on multiple occassions (not that it would make me a "creationist" in the slightest).

If you search the archives of ZLMB, you'll find me commenting on Flew's initial coming out right when it happened. Technically, I commented even before then where there was just speculation.

Want a cookie? I'm sure that as a religious supporter of talkorigins and the notorious atheist Richard Carrier, you were kept in the loop as that whole thing played itself out.

That quote comes from a very short offering on the subject that was the sum-total of the information Flew offered at the time. He was very clear about endorsing a ridiculous ID argument I just quoted.

And yet he rejects it now and still remains a theist. You'd know that if you read the context! One might understand why if he were interested in reading his book, as opposed to swallowing self-serving snippets as they are fed to him by the secular web.

You have, over and over, said you are a theist for the same reasons as Flew. Or are you going to now deny that too?

For all the reasons, not just one. I have also said I am a theist in exactly the same way Einstein was.

I'm far better read than you are on this subject on both sides of the fence.

I'm the only one who has actually read his book, but you're better read on Flew's views because you rub elbows with the other cyber atheists at talkorigins. Gotcha!

If you say you believe in God for the same reasons Anthony Flew does, and Flew says, "My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species ... [In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms" and proceeds to endorse the the work of a well-known old earth creationist apologist in Gerald Schroeder, then logic dictates you are saying you believe in God at least in part because of creationist arguments. That's what creationism is. It's not a strawman to simply point it out.

Again, you don't know what creationism is. It is whatever you need it to be, but the fact is Kenneth Miller must also be a creationist since he believes God is intelligent and is responsible for all that is. You try to get around this problem. removing him from this category by redefining creationism. So you come up with this little piece of nonsense: "Creationists are those who argue that there is scientific evidence for God."

So you can believe in God. You can believe he is intellgent, all powerful, responsible for our reality, etc. But as long as you keep your mouth shut about this, you won't be accused of being a creationist? How slick. Do you really think this gambit is going to work here? Think again. Your favorite source includes Evolutionary Theists like Kenneth Miller, as a subset of Creationism: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html

But I guess you don't need to call him a creationist because you're not debating him.

[_mikwut]

EA,

I think Kevin brings up a salient point. Your history with Kevin is probably making this muddier than it needs to be. I do find myself 'somewhat' confused as to how you categorize individuals that accept evolution as scientific and still accept an intelligent being is somehow a fundamental basis for creation in some way. How do examples or others such as John Polkinghorne remove themselves from the label "creationist"?

Kevin,

I am curious as to how you base your theism, sincerely. I do understand a portion of EAs arguments toward you. What are the evidences for God that you accept - do they include an experiential, simply faith based - basic or fundamental acceptance of deity and then allow that lens to craft certain parts of reality as evidence for deity - or does your theism follow more of a natural theology of accepting reality itself as evidence for Deity?

regards, mikwut

[_Kevin Graham]

I am curious as to how you base your theism, sincerely. I do understand a portion of EAs arguments toward you. What are the evidences for God that you accept - do they include an experiential, simply faith based - basic or fundamental acceptance of deity and then allow that lens to craft certain parts of reality as evidence for deity - or does your theism follow more of a natural theology of accepting reality itself as evidence for Deity?

I believe our reality is best explained as the product of an intelligent source. What or who that source is, I have no idea. But I am conformtable callng it God. There are a wide variety of reasons I think reality points to God, but at the top of the list would be the fine-tuned universe, the uniqueness of mankind, the human consciousness and then at the bottom of the list would be personal experiences.

But the thing is, I have never tried to convert atheists to theism. After listening to these guys ramble on and on, you might be under the impression that it is I who has been trying to zealously convert my opponents. Or that I am the bigot who doesn't tolerate their lack of belief. But the record will show that I have always engaged these discussion in self-defense. Most of the earlier threads were created by atheists who were looking to slam theists, calling us stupid, illogical, irrational, etc. I finally decided to break my silence on this topic, and the result is obvious. The same people who once congratulated me frequently for being reasonable, now attack me for being stupid. What changed? Only one thing: I didn't convert to the dark side of atheism as some had presumed.

When asked to present my reasons for the rationality of theism, I would consequently be marauded by the nearby atheists. They took any kind of theistic argument as an attack on their atheism. I have always been content to just agree to disagree, but they have not. They are constantly "biting at the chomp" as JSM succinctly put it. They are out for blood. This is just one of the many reasons why I say radical atheism is a religion in every sense of the word. They are organized, agenda driven, identity driven, passionate, dogma dependent and protective of their tribe. Everything a religion needs. So it is quite ironic when you see people like EA accuse me of bigotry when he and his henchmen refuse to tolerate my beliefs. I have gone on record saying I do not believe atheism is irrational. They cannot afford me the same courtesy.

The fact is I have laid out my reasons for being a theist on too many occassons to count. I have gone into greater detail in some cases. But they only ask so they can try "dismantling" my reasons wthin a narrow "science" framework that I don't accept. Then they get upset because their arguments don't work for me. At this point they resort to name-calling and schoolyard bullying tactics. Frequently they indulge straw man arguments and exhibit a tendency to misrepresent me and my positions to the point that I don't even find it worth the effort anymore. This is why I have disengaged these conversations in the past.

In a nutshell I believe the more we learn about the cosmos, the more an intelligent designer makes sense. I don't believe in a strictly random mechanistic universe, and modern science is moving away from that out dated model. There appears to be a tremendous level of order, and we know the universe is governed by laws that were written to serve specific functions. As an example... Science cannot explain why the nuclear forces are as they are. They just are! But if they were different by a fraction of a degree, we know what kind of universe we would exist. A lifeless one. Why? Because the only elements that could exist would be helium or hydrogen. That's it!

The only common value for all the universal constants is that they are as they are so life can exist. This has teleology written all over it, but it doesn't explain much in a "scientific" sense because our modern philosophy of science excludes strictly teleological explanations. For me, this says more about the limits of science than it does the weakness of a teleological explanation. For atheists here who are adherents to the religions of scientism, materialism and naturalism, the opposite is true. This is our fundamental point of divergence and they can't stand it. As believers in scientism and as they think they represent paragons of rationality, they think that they can convince anyone to their way of thinking via science. When they fail to do so, they let out ther frustrations with the name-calling. JSM has called me just about every name in the book. So has Schmo and Mercury. EA and Tarski are more composed, but EA resorts to ridicule by the association fallacy and by pretending my arguments are mere plagiarisms from others.

[_Tarski]

I believe our reality is best explained as the product of an intelligent source. What or who that source is, I have no idea.

Is it possible that the souce is none other than the structure of possibility itself? Not everything is possible even logically. The space of the possible has incredible strcture. The study of what is possible is basically mathematics. I mean to propose that mathematical structures of mind boggling complexity exist in this set of possibilities and among the set of possible structures are algorthmic sifting processes (anything sufficiently similar to evolution such as Smolin's ideas) that in turn explore large regions of the space of possibilities sifting by selection more and more complex structures for "acualization".

This points to something like a "God is Logic" or a "God is Mathematics" idea.
Is this good enough as a notion of God?

Another point to consider is that the notion of "source" that you mention above takes on quite a different aspect when viewed from the perspective of block spacetime which is the view of reality more or less forced on us by modern physics.
(Souce is usually thought of temporally but this may just be a human perspective)
In this spacetime view, time is like space and so asking for a souce in time is like asking for a souce for a spatial structure but not a souce in time. Imagine asking for the source of latitudinal circles somewhere near the south pole. (Here "south to north" is in analogy with "past to future" and latitudinal circles are analogous to epochs in time.) How do these appear out of the south pole? It's wrong headed. But in the block universe view, many source question we are used to asking start to sound wrong headed too.
This would make more sense to you if you knew about the Hartle-Hawking no-boundary cosmology.

But I am conformtable callng it God. There are a wide variety of reasons I think reality points to God, but at the top of the list would be the fine-tuned universe, the uniqueness of mankind .

Well, I don't know what you mean by the "uniqueness of mankind". Elephant-kind is unique too. Also, there may well be plenty of intelligent life elsewhere in case it is language and stuff you are thinking of.


I take it that when you look at the wonderfulness of the world and the universe you feel that there must be a wonderful source for it all outside of what is being considered.

Then when you consider the wonderfulness of God, do you likewise ask for a source for that, for God?

Often theists will try to disarm this question or try to embarrass the questioner by saying something like "oh that's just the old child's question".

This will not do because the question is a good one and is continually brought up by the most intelligent of people (it's even in Hawking's books).

A child could understand Fermat's lemma too but it took hundreds of years to answer it.
The child's question of why the sky is blue requires quantum mechanics for the explanation.

That fact that a child my be able to ask a question of that a question is an old one does not solve any problem of allow us to ignore the question.

The question is very good one and all the more so given how quickly it comes to the thoughtful mind and how long we have been waiting for an answer that isn't one that we could have just as well used on the universe itself. (You say God just is? Well, why not "The wonderful universe just is"???)
How does this vague notion of God really get us anywhere but one step back. In fact, we are in a worse position since we know nothing of this God. The word becomes worse than a place holder, it becomes a "search stopper".

Another distraction I wish you would avoid is proclaiming something like "that's just a page out of so and so's book".
The response to that would be "uumm, so what?". Who should care whether some good point or some piece of science brought up in a debate has already been written down somewhere (probably many many places)?
Address the points directly please.

(For instance I haven't read Dawkin's GD book and I couldn't care less if something I say reminds you of something in his book. Again so what?)

[_marg]

This points to something like a "God is Logic" or a "God is Mathematics" idea.
Is this good enough as a notion of God?

I believe I understand kevin's point of view. I think he feels that science is inadequate to conclude there must be an intelligent designer/creator of the universe and that is a deficiency of scientific reasoning/method/process. That because precise natural physical laws are necessary for life and for the universe to exist as is that is enough justification to reason to conclude an intelligent designer entity..even though nothing is known about that entity or how it came to exist.

So while an atheist or agnostic or science remains uncommitted to any conclusion how about life and universe began he thinks that's the irrational position...that some sort of intelligent entity must necessarily have been responsible.

I doubt very much he'd think God was a non entity abstract concept such as "logic" as you suggest possible.

I can appreciate his position. It is rational as far as there is reasoning being used to justify the conclusion..via inductive reasoning, but it's weak reasoning due to lack of positive evidence of that entity/entities.

(I'm heading out for the day)

[_Kevin Graham]

Tarski, you can believe in the Hartle-Hawking proposal if you wish, but the fact is it is not well accepted, has many shortcomngs in its hypothesis, and the dominant position in science remains to be Big Bang cosmology. Hawking himself conceded the point that if the universe has a beginning, then it is reasonable to assume a creator. But if it is limitless, then there would be no need for a creator. Hawking doesn't believe in a creator, hence his attempt to turn Big Bang cosmology on its head. And I can understand why atheists love his effort.

I am reminded of one of EA's favorite sources, the radical atheist Victor Stenger, who ignorantly declared, "Modern cosmology indicates a limitless universe, it has no beginning and no end in time. The Big Bang is just an episode wthin the larger unverse whch led to the subuniverse we call home." He declared this as if it were a matter of fact, failing to clue his audience in on the fact that it is fringe theory at best.

Well, I don't know what you mean by the "uniqueness of mankind".

Our consciousness, creative abilities, rational faculties, our unique sense of moralty/altruism, our advanced intelligence, etc. We are clearly the pinnacle of creation.

I take it that when you look at the wonderfulness of the world and the universe you feel that there must be a wonderful source for it all outside of what is being considered.

No, not necessarily.

Then when you consider the wonderfulness of God, do you likewise ask for a source for that, for God?

I don't think this question is childish, I just think it misses the point. It is reasonable to ask for the source of the universe because we know the universe has a beginning. That was Hawking's point when he said if it isn't infinite, then we can presume a creator. God on the other hand, may or may not have a beginning. But that shouldn't prevent anyone from wondering where he came from if he does have a beginning.

What I object to is the silly notion that say, by asking "where did God come from?" you've somehow removed the need to explain where the universe came from. Maybe the God hypothesis moves us one step further back in time, but at least that's progress. With an uncaused Big Bang we are stuck in one moment in time.

How does this vague notion of God really get us anywhere but one step back.

As if Big Bang cosmology is leaping us forward? It comes to a dead stop as well. Our reality is based on the assumption that matter was so dense and so hot that it created a massive explosion, creating or universe.

In fact, we are in a worse position since we know nothing of this God.

We know he must exist, which is wonderful news. It provides positive value in the lives of billons. Maybe at some future point he will make himself manifest in more obvious ways. Who knows?

The word becomes worse than a place holder, it becomes a "search stopper".

Nonsense. Big Bang cosmology already put a stop to it. God might explain why the Big Bang happened to begin with. Say what you want about religous myths, but it is hard to ignore the fact that they have gotten some pretty impressive things correct. For instance, we do actually dominate and rule over the rest of creation. We do appear to be in a privileged position in the universe. Plants and animals did exist before mankind.

To the dismay of many an atheist, it was Christianity that gave birth to modern science. Without the Christian assumptions that the universe is created and governed by laws we could learn and understand, science would not have advanced to its current state.

Anyway, I understand what you mean about the Dawkins comments. I am willing to accept that you have never read these arguments from him. Unfortunately, nobody is willing to accept my claim that I don't rely on creatonist sources.

[_Kevin Graham]

while an atheist or agnostic or science remains uncommitted to any conclusion how about life and universe began he thinks that's the irrational position.

No, I don't think that at all.

For me this has never been about me smart you stupid, me right you wrong, me rational you irrational, me attractive you ugly.

It has always been about a difference of opinion and an attempt to show that my opinion is not irrational or based strictly on the straw man assumptions so many atheists create (i.e., if nature can't prove it then it is proof for God or the world looks wonderful, therefore it must have been a creator)

These debates were born from the original JAK thread whereby he maintained that religion is dangerous and we'd all be better off without it. It was never about tryng to convince atheists here that God exists.

[_marg]

To the dismay of many an atheist, it was Christianity that gave birth to modern science. Without the Christian assumptions that the universe is created and governed by laws we could learn and understand, science would not have advanced to its current state.

Nonsense, one doesn't need to assume a universe is created in order to observe repeated patterns and reach hypothesis/theories/conclusions/physical laws on those observations.

[_Kevin Graham]

Consider the history. Before Christianity took over, the popular belief was that the universe was just an illusion. So there was nothing for the modern scientific method to work with as far as making predictions, experiments, measurements, etc. This method was born from the Christian premise that the universe was indeed real, and that it was governed by laws that we could observe and understand. It can't be just a coincidence that the Fathers of modern science were overwhemingly Christian.

[_JohnStuartMill]

So what? How does this change the fact that you flat out lied by saying over and over again that I'm simply repeating verbatim from creationist sources? You put phrases into quotations like "what good is half a wing"? to reinforce your theory that I am merely borrowing creationist arguments, but I have never uysed that phrase. You're being disingenuous.

Who said the following, Kevin?

Yes, but I'm still working on the first flying creature and how it managed to get itself out of the water, drop its gills, acquire an entirely new respiratory system, etc., just so it could take flight and become a mosquito, hawk or bluebird. There seems to be no purpose in this mutation.

That is precisely a "what good is half a wing?" argument, replete with smuggled-in teleology.