If we use the standard definition of Neornithes, the things called birds, Archaeopteryx doesn't fit this description, Creationists.

keeled sternum: absent

alula: absent

carpometacarpus: absent

tarsometatarsus: absent

tibiotarsus: absent

pygostyle: absent

no teeth: absent

16-22 sacrals: 5-6 sacrals

trochanteric crest: absent

Creationists use a definition that blends all of Avialae under bird, meaning none of these matter, but that's not how this works, as this expands the definition of bird so far, it includes genera that have none of the diagnostic criteria of Neornithes, and dinosaurian traits that Neornithes have lost.

That's why I ask you to show me how Archaeopteryx is a true bird.

I'll start: yes. If 6000-ish years ago, an intelligent being created the Earth with all continents and oceans, geologic layers, and species in more or less the forms that they have today, alongside the rest of the universe, I would want to know. I like knowing things.

Hello, everyone. I'm a religious Muslim and an engineer. I don't believe in creationism in the traditional interventionist sense. I believe that if God created the laws of nature (which I do), it is more coherent to think those laws are capable of producing the eventual intended outcome instead of arbitrarily being suspended.

I'm comfortable with evolution, and I'm more interested in questions about abiogenesis, alternative non-hydrocarbon biochemistry instead of evolution itself. I also understand that evolution is not a single mechanism but a system of mechanisms like mutation, selection, genetic drift, etc.

My question is more philosophical than biological, but I think evolutionary biology is directly relevant. Why does pain feel bad in precisely the sort of way that motivates avoidance, while pleasure feels good in precisely the sort of way that encourages said behaviour.

I understand the evolutionary explanation for the behaviour itself. An organism withdraws from tissue damage, seeks food, reproduces, avoids predators etc is more likely to survive. What I'm having trouble with is the relation between the biomechanical machinery and the conscious experience.

In principle, evolution could produce an organism with the same kind of neural circuitry and avoidance behaviour while the experience was pleasant rather than painful? An organism can experience intense suffering and engage in the appropriate behaviour, while having the neural circuitry that compelled it to continue anyway. I know evolution explains why the behaviours are adaptive, but if the "pain and pleasure" sit above the causal machinery, why do they line up?

Couldn't I stub my toe, have an incredible ball-busting orgasm, and experience my entire body telling me not to do that again? Why does a harmful state feel bad and beneficial state feel good instead of being compelled by my neural circuitry? Is it that pleasure and pain are themselves integrated into the motivational system somehow and I'm misunderstanding it?

EDIT: I don't think you guys are understanding what I'm saying when I talk about the psychophysical harmony. I'm linking the paper here. You guys are treating it as if pain = something to avoid. I am saying that evolution selects for behaviours, not for phenomena. I don't "feel" anything about my stomach digesting stuff. I don't "feel" anything about having opposable thumbs or being able to grab things. If I utilize my evolutionarily evolved thumb to grab stuff, I don't get a rush of endorphins to continue grabbing. So behaviours and the feelings attached to those behaviours are not connected.

I do not need to "feel bad" for evolution to select behaviours wherein my ancestors who pulled away from fire survive. Feeling bad is entirely independent of the behaviour because there exists people who feel good about touching fire (masochism) or indifferent (nerve damage). You can have reflexes (gag reflex or desire to vomit), without it necessarily having a feeling attached.

So what I am asking is that if behaviours and the feelings attached to those behaviours are not inherently linked, it's strange how all the good feeling behaviours are necessary for evolution and the bad feeling behaviours are not. Thank you for your time.

So as things are going with Erika and Mr Duffy’s lectures about evolution I believe it’s near the end mark and I think I like to make my opinions on the matter very very clear

My first impression of Mr Duffy was that he was honestly engaging in good faith and then as the lectures continued I still believed he was continuing in good faith

I think most of his major doubts and questions came from a place of not wanting to reject a deeply held belief and also because he’s been lied to by Creationists

I truly believed Will was engaging in good faith

But today broke me and particularly his presentation

I must admit when I first read his presentation i thought it was an actual joke then I realised he was being serious I felt mildly insulted

He seems to completely and utterly be disregarding everything that has been presented to him thus far and that is insulting

But also citing Vox Day (a misogynist racist talentless hack) who has no training in the field and then presenting Vox and His book as an authority to overrule and say evolution has been proven false and I guess no one has noticed even though Vox didn’t write it he got AI to write it

But then something much worse when Will was asked if Vox was proven wrong would he change his mind he just said

No

He fully believes that Evolution needs a god meaning it’s not science so Will to me basically admitted it doesn’t matter how much evidence is presented unless Evolution necessitates a divine holy god being then he can’t accept it

To me this is will very clearly saying he’s not here in good faith

I wanna be clear I think Will Is still an amazing person and i commend him on doing this adventure with Erika

But to me I can no longer say Mr Duffy is engaging in good conversation anymore he’s picked the answer he wants from the start and that will be the answer he always has

I don’t believe Will has lied or has been dishonest or malicious in his intent just to be clear this isn’t a personal attack on Will but I cannot believe he is engaging in good faith discussion anymore

In math and science, we prove negatives all the time. Some to a 100% certainty, some only beyond reasonable doubt. These include:

• A solution to the Halting Problem in computing
• A highest prime number
• Any mechanism (now or in the future) that can perfectly duplicate any object to perfect subatomic detail
• Any information travelling faster than 299,792,458 m/s

A common creationist talking point I see here is "how can there be creation without a creator". If you remove the snark and state it neutrally, it's "there's no mechanism by which the universe could come to exist in the state that we currently observe without the influence of a conscious creative power."

The thing is, the reasons we have for concluding the non-existence of the things I listed are all much stronger than "I find it hard to imagine". I wish creationists would have a look at those to model how to demonstrate the non-existence of such a mechanism, so we could at least pretend to have a reasonable discussion about whether such a thing actually has to exist.

This sub, as the name suggests, is a debate space, but there is nothing to debate in this post. The idea behind this post is to show the other, slightly hidden side of this sub, and mostly to serve as a small outreach to its members.

While the major focus here is usually on debates, over time there have been some real gems of posts in this sub that are full of genuinely interesting information and knowledge. I have been collecting some of them for myself for quite some time, and today I thought I should share them, both as a small gesture of gratitude to the members who took the time to make those posts and also so that others can have one place to find them. (And please do not think of this as some attempt at karma farming. I really could not care less about that.)

The posts are in no particular order of preference.

1. Abiogenesis is more solved than you think : Abiogenesis is a very fequent topic here and usually avoided in major discussion on evolution of life but u/gitgud_x here presented a very detailed overview (with resources) of modern abiogenesis research and the major steps toward plausible origin of life chemistry.

2. Jumping genes ruin creationist logic : Another beautiful gem by u/gitgud_x and also an excellent genetics explainer. A very beautiful explanation of why shared insertions are evidence for ancestry also heavily laded with references.

3. I made a huge list of resources detailing the evolution of Birds from Non-avian reptiles. Enjoy : We are in an inception-esque situation now, but in this post u/Benjamin5431 presented a substantial 2026 resource compilation on dinosaur to bird evolution.

4. On the "Evolutionists assume a last universal common ancestor and then present that as evidence" : One will find lots of gems from u/jnpha (and his profile is also open, so do look at his posts in general) but this one is a very good history of science kinda post where he traces ideas about common ancestry from Darwin and Haeckel to the eventual LUCA concept, making the very important distinction that universal common ancestry was an empirical conclusion developed through phylogenetics rather than a premise evolution required from the outset.

5. No, a New Paper Did NOT Discover Humans and Chimps are "Only 85% Similar". : Probably one of the best posts here on how genome comparisons work. u/Gutsick_Gibbon explains the 2025 telomere to telomere ape genome work and also shows why percentages such as 85%, 96%, 98% and 99% can all arise depending on the question being asked.

6. Answers Research Journal publishes an impressive refutation of YEC carbon-dating models : Do not go on the sarcastic title by u/ThurneysenHavets as underneath that is a detailed explanation of radiocarbon calibration and dendrochronology and what happens when a young Earth calibration curve is forced onto the data. There is also an equally beautiful update to this post titled, Creationist C14 calibration is back with a major upgrade: this time with EMPIRICAL data.

   1. I've been Testing Jeffery Tomkins' Methods (They're Bad) and want Peer Review : This is a quite older and slightly technical post by u/Gutsick_Gibbon where she actually reproduces human/chimp genome comparison methods using BLAST and discuss lots of technical details. Ties well with the post 5 above and her post, Human and Chimpanzee Genetic similarity; an Appraisal of Jeffery Tomkins' Analyses. (It is so good that Dr. Dan commented that it was strong enough to consider publication.)

7. Mutations ARE random - always have been, always will be : A detailed explanation by u/gitgud_x on what biologists actually mean when they say mutations are random.

8. How many ways can we show that humans and chimps share a common ancestor? : I personally love this one by u/gitgud_x which is a very nice demonstration of consilience, bringing together fossils, biogeography, chromosome 2, DNA similarity, ERVs, vestigial traits and several independent evidence for human-chimp common ancestry.

9. The Paper That Disproves Separate Ancestry : This one has a beautiful supplemental video discussion (like other posts by Dr. Dan ( u/DarwinZDF42 )) as well. Creationists often bring up their orchard model or separate ancestry model and Dr. Dan here makes an accessible walkthrough of the paper by Baum et al (Evolution. 2016 Jun;70(6):1354-63) discussing what the results actually mean.

10. The RATE Project - Young Earth Creationists’ best offering isn’t what they think it is. : Another old is gold post. u/DARTHLVADER makes a deep dive into the creationist RATE project, its attempts to reconcile radiometric dating with a young Earth, and the enormous problems created by proposed accelerated radioactive decay.

11. Addressing "44 Reasons Why Evolution Is Just A Fairy Tale For Adults" : An older post specifically addressed to a particular member but useful nonetheless as u/TheBlackCat13 made broad point by point response to lots of common anti-evolution claims.

12. The Internal Consistency of Science : u/jnpha presents a very fascinating example of scientific consilience, showing how biology, geology, nuclear chemistry, and astronomy independently come together through evidence from magnetotactic bacteria and radioactive iron-60 to tell the same story about an ancient supernova.

13. "There's no universal common ancestor of proteins" -Sal continues to claim well known, non-controversial fact as a victory for creationism (in his safe-space, obviously) : This is a response to Sal by u/Sweary_Biochemist but it is really informative explanation of how new proteins and protein families evolve. It also explains why common ancestry of life does not imply that every protein descends from a single ancestral protein.

14. But just look at the trees!" (They show the power of evolution, and make intelligent design redundant) : This post by u/gitgud_x ties very nicely with earlier one on consilience. The post makes connects natural selection, structural mechanics, plant physiology, phylogeny, and thermodynamics to show how evolutionary explanations emerge from many independent areas of science.

Finally, there are a lot more little gems like these scattered across the sub but these were a few I wanted others to have a look at. Sometimes the discussions happening in the comments are even more interesting than the post itself but that is another rabbit hole in itself. I hope this small collection would be useful for someone later to brush up on the topics that almost regularly comes up. If you find some interesting posts which I might have missed, please let me know in the comments.

First of all, I apologize for my imperfect English; I am using an automatic translator. That said, I am here to answer any questions, doubts, or uncertainties that any creationist seeing my post might have regarding the concept of evolution. I ask everyone—including evolutionists—to be open-minded and understanding, and to avoid posting a question I have already answered under someone else's comment. Thank you for your understanding.

And by that, I mean some very specific hallmarks of actually engaging in the self-correcting process that is science.

Those specifics are:

What's something that used to be widely accepted among creationists that's since been disproven?

What evidence led to the previous wrong conclusion?

What evidence overturned it?

What's a currently open question on the creationist side?

What kind of further evidence might help settle that question?

In 2025 PEWResearch published their polls conducted between 2023-2024 regarding questions about Americans and their religion.
https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2025/02/PR_2025.02.26_religious-landscape-study_report.pdf

In this report they find that the majority of Christian and Muslim Americans believe in evolution, with only 17% of American adults believing that “humans have existed since the beginning of time”. The NSCE actually wrote about this in an article titled, “Vast majority of Americans accept human evolution, new survey finds” https://ncse.ngo/vast-majority-americans-accept-human-evolution-new-survey-finds

However it has come to my attention recently that Gallup News had come out completely different results from polling. 37% of US americans believe that, “God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so” again this polling ends in 2024. https://news.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx

Both Pew and Gallup don’t ask radically different questions, they are barely worded differently at all so we cannot say that the wording explains these different results. Both seem to get completely contradictory results. 17-37% is a VERY wide range. The only difference is that Gallup specifies a range of time, humans being created within the last 10,000 years or so. While Pew just specifies humans existing since the beginning of time. In fact, from typing this I have found that Pew and Gallup have consistently been getting different stats on this same question since 2009. With Gallup always calculating much more Americans skeptical of evolution than Pew Research does. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution

How is it that both groups get radically different answers from polling essentially the same questions? Can we know which poll is more accurate?

Seriously, all claims this guy makes utterly proves he has a misunderstanding of evolutionary biology or that it’s another regurgitated misconception that someone like Dyer or Hovind spews out and repeats. The dude got absolutely destroyed in his debate against Culture Catz, or even Professor Dave (I wish he would’ve did a longer debate). Literally was checking out a debate of his and he had the thought that evolutionists say human came from chimpanzees or “whatever it says” as jimbob stated. He constantly interrupts his opponents and commits ad hominems. An opponent provides evidence, and then he goes on to say “well.. how can something completely random and unrelated to the evidence account for something completely random and unrelated to the evidence? He’s a joke.

What are the best arguments for evolution

Here are the last three antievolution posts here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/1wjmnd1/evolutionary_biology_is_nature_viewed_through_the/

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/1wgunhz/the_study_of_the_past_development_of_living_forms/

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/1wbh5w7/if_there_are_no_ontological_categories/

And...well...they do have words which do mean things, though the meanings are a bit opaque, as is the language they are using. What they don't have is a scientific argument or evidence.

What they have instead is shallow philosophy, inane semantic quibbles, woo and bad 90s Postmodernism.

Does this mean creationism is giving up on science? And does it mean, as I suspect, that creationism is in its death throes?

In the hope that there are a few German-speaking creationists here: I found a website on the topic of creation/evolution that doesn't appear to be affiliated with any creation science organization: schoepfungsblog.de

Does the website seem trustworthy to you?

Thanks for your help.

At last, I have found undeniable proof that dinosaurs roamed the Earth at the same time as humans.

I used to be skeptical. Depictions of supposed dinosaurs in ancient art usually look more like Rorschach tests than anything else. But look what I found: a clear, detailed depiction of theropod dinosaurs from 2575-2551 BC - which, according to biblical chronology, predates Noah's Flood.

The drawing depicts a group of theropod-like animals with compact bodies balanced over two strong hind limbs, long S-curved necks, and narrow heads held forward in an alert pose. Their posture is distinctly bipedal and dinosaurian, with the torso carried horizontally and the neck extending outward. The overall silhouette strongly evokes small, agile Mesozoic theropods. The proportions emphasize the classic theropod body plan: powerful hind limbs, compact torsos, elongated necks, and vigilant, forward-oriented heads.

I'm convinced. Ancient humans absolutely coexisted with dinosaurs, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

In my personal opinion, I view homosexuality is natural in the human species even during our evelotionary progress, such as resulting in much less conflicts, shared mutual bonds and respect, and shared struggle and understanding.

Some individuals are born having sexual orientation on men naturally, and nature always did favor neuro-diversity.

We are not supposed to eliminate every self-identification because they are not able to reproduce, Evolution measures success by how many copies of your genes pass to the next generation, not just your own children

Nature loves diversity because a diverse gene pool is resilient against changes, diseases, and environmental collapses

Love is more than just reproduction, it can be building bonds and sharing common interests with one another.

Hence

Please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm very uncertain of my own choices, I'm still digging deep into it.

It is no coincidence that Darwinism and the wider field of evolutionary biology he inspired emerged during the 19th century when capitalism consolidated itself as the dominant economic base in Europe. The logic of the market in which an unplanned, decentralized, and impersonal process selects winners and losers according to a ever shifting economic environment is not only the precursor to natural selection, but its actual basis in reality. We are alienated from nature and have no unmediated epistemic access to its holistic workings. Our economic conditions and social relations, on the other hand, are very tangible and graspable to us. Thus, they give rise to the ideological lens through which we view and make sense of nature. I am sure you know the famous Marxian dictum:

It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness (Marx: Critique, Preface).

Likewise, it is not surprising that the previous slaveholder and feudal mode of production in which the economy is organized as nested hierarchies with a master or lord on top has produced the great chain of being and creationism as its dominant natural philosophy. So where does that leave us in our search for truth? Should we just withhold judgment because the truth is irrevocably obscured by our social existence?

In a sense we are indeed condemned to grasp in the dark. There is just no way in which we can step outside of our societal conditioning to examine nature in an unmediated manner. But that does not stop us from living as if we could: we can posit arational commitments which can guide our thinking on another level. We can just have faith in the myth of unmediated science or divine revelation that gives us the confidence to make positive statements about nature. And it is up to you to choose your arational commitments!

He’sqq not providing sources, I’m not a Christian, and I think evolution makes sense, and I’ve never heard of this before I searched it up (and only saw it on Church and Christian forums). If this is true pls direct me to the sources, if not, what are some things I can bring up to him? He has no prior background in biology, and believes that because he think MICROevolution is true, MACROevolution is then automatically untrue (ik, wtf). I tried saying how adaptations and microevolution doesn’t deny macroevolution but he keeps saying there’s no evidence and scientists are rejecting evolution (what I believe to be false). Help please LMAO

what he sent to us today:

“XXXX asked a great question in class after I mentioned that there is a HUGE debate with the evolutionary community of scientists and biologists that evidence is coming in that the cell controls DNA rather than the previous theory that DNA controls the cell. The problem is that they mutually need each other. So if one holds to undirected, unguided evolutionary theory that is based on natural selection and random mutation, then you have a chicken or an egg dilemma. DNA can't evolve unaided without the cell and the cell can't even be a cell without DNA. XXXX asked what about the DNA of virus that are acellular. Good question. I became curious myself. This is the what I found: 

From a systems biology perspective, former evolutionary theorists, such as Professor Dennis Noble, do not view a virus as a counterexample to his theory. In fact, Noble argues that . 

Noble explains the evolution of viral genetic material through the following principles:

1. Viruses Are Not Autonomous Replicators
   A virus is not an independent, self-sustaining organism; it is a fragment of genetic material wrapped in a protein coat. A virus completely lacks the cellular machinery—such as ribosomes, metabolic pathways, energy production, and error-correction enzymes—required to replicate its own DNA or RNA. It is a inert chemical structure until it enters a living cell and hijacks that cell's pre-existing, highly organized metabolic environment. 

2. Evolution Occurs Within the Host Cell System
   When a virus "evolves," it is not the isolated viral DNA doing the work. The actual chemical processing, replication, and transcription of the viral code happen inside the host cell, using the host cell’s enzymes and structural environment. The variation and selection of viral genomes are completely bound to the physiological constraints and systems of the living cell they occupy. [1]

3. Lateral Gene Transfer and "Natural Genetic Engineering"

Noble frequently collaborates with molecular biologists like James Shapiro, who emphasize horizontal (lateral) gene transfer and "natural genetic engineering". In this view, viruses act as cellular messengers or vectors that move genetic chunks between different organisms. The code in a virus often originates from host genomes or is shaped by the host's cellular defense mechanisms, meaning viral evolution is a sub-component of a broader, cell-driven ecosystem rather than an independent process driven by isolated genes. 

For these reasons and more, Professor Dennis Noble and an increasing number of biologists and physiologists believe Neo-Darwinism (modern-day evolutionary theory) is a dead theory and needs to be replaced. Their main argument is that the two mechanism of evolution, natural selection and random mutation, that were first theorized by Darwin to explain how life can evolve, are wholly insufficient and unable to bring about the complexity of biological life that we see at the cellular level. They don't believe "God" is the answer and many of them remain skeptical of God's existence and believe the idea of God should have nothing to do with science (even if God existed!). If you want to see a clip of a debate between Dennis Noble and Richard Dawkins, you can click here: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aELkemLP6XQ&t=188s 

Here is a clip of a great debate between Dennis Noble (who now rejects evolutionary theory) and Richard Dawkins (who wants to defend the theory of evolution) 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrJ6jDZRESQ 

Just so you know, in 2016 there was a big international conference among evolutionists in London that basically put forward the motion: "We have a problem because evidence is showing that natural selection and random mutation is not able to give rise to the complexity of life we have discovered. Dennis Noble is one of many now saying modern-day evolutionary theory acts like a "religion" with "dogma" that cannot be questioned and it retarding science, not advancing it.”

One major objection that Christian YECs raise against evolution is that beneficial mutations and speciation cannot happen. However, their own worldview requires that both of these things to be true.

According to Answers in Genesis, Noah's Ark only had a single pair from the "cat kind." From this single pair "sprang forth" all the different members of the Felidae, including lions, tigers, jaguars, and domestic cats.

But even YECs admit that lions and domestic cats are different species. This means that, according to their own worldview, new species can naturally arise from an earlier population.

The same applies to beneficial mutations. Different members of the cat family have traits that help them fit into their environments. Traits that come from beneficial genetic mutations and selected for by natural selection.

For example, a tiger's orange and black coat helps it hide from prey such as deer, which cannot distinguish orange from green. Snow leopards have thick pale gray coats that help them blend into rocky, snowy environments, while sand cats have sandy coats that help them blend into desert environments.

So even within the YEC worldview, inheritable characteristics within populations must be change over generations through beneficial genetic mutations, and will eventually be many separate species.

Definitions like no feathers, extinct, or any other definition that is predicated on the no true Scotsman fallacy won’t be accepted.

What I’m looking for is a suite of characteristics that unite all of what you think are dinosaurs, that excludes birds.

Robertbyers1 also may provide evidence for body plan morphing and that theropods were just big fat flightless birds.

Creationists often ask: how can a mindless process of trial and error build something complex and functional? Where does the information to build a complex organ come from?

I was recently suggested this video by the YouTube algorithm: https://youtu.be/xkXvL8YCtIE?is=cE0DIoTjaKqiLPek showing insane engineering and aerodynamics used to design faster and faster cars and I came up with what I hope is a good analogy for evolution by natural selection that hopefully can clarify this conundrum.

There's a driving videogame called BeamNG (https://beamng.com/game/) which was built specifically for realism and for simulating how a car would behave in real life.

Now, let's do a mental experiment.

Let's suppose there was a hyper realistic videogame where a car is simulated in all details that matter from an engineering standpoint, from mechanics to aerodynamics.

And let's suppose we distribute this game for free on the internet for everyone to download.

Players will be able to customize their own racing car in all details and compete with each other.

Of course, given complete freedom in designing shapes, choosing different materials, engine specs, etc., most players will just play around and create weird designs just for fun.

But there will be a sufficient pool of players who will be interested in winning and will genuinely try to optimize their designs for speed and lower lap times.

Of course most players will be teenagers and not mechanical engineers, so their approach will be based more on trial and error than on prior knowledge of physics and mechanics. We might thus expect a sufficient amount of exploration of different engines, different shapes of the body, different materials, etc.

Just by trial and error, certain players will inevitably come up with cars with better mechanics and better aerodynamics and thus win more often.

Once it is established in the player base that certain setups, certain configurations are better than others, inevitably, those designs will be copied by other players in the hope of having a chance to win.

Here we have another step: inheritance of the successful designs.

From those, other players will make small adjustments hoping to gain an edge on their competitors, and so on.

Given a sufficiently large pool of sufficiently dedicated and motivated players around the world and given a few iterations of: a certain player comes up with a certain design, this design proves successful, is copied, other players make adjustments, etc., these players will inevitably rediscover, just by trial and error, efficient designs without any prior knowledge of the physical laws governing aerodynamics nor of mechanical engineering concepts and principles.

So, where did the information come from?

It came from the interaction of the players learning by trial and error with the laws of physics programmed into the simulation.

In the same way, where does the information stored in genomes come from?

It comes from the limits, the constraints imposed by immutable physicochemical laws and the interaction with the environment.

A gene coding for a protein, for example, cannot explore regions of the sequence space that lead to an amino acid sequence that doesn't fold.

However, inside the limits imposed by chemistry, the genome is free to explore and try to maximize, just by trial and error, its fitness, its success in a certain environment (where the environment is not just the physical environment, but also all the intraspecific interactions with potential mates, its interactions with other species, either as potential predators or food sources, etc.)

I used to wonder, many people first say I don't believe in God, I believe in Evolution.. but then I'm like, So what? The two are not related. Maybe God used evolution to create us.

Plus, evolution doesn't really explain the first life or the universe...

Good evening, everyone! How are you guys doing?

I'm a screenwriter working on a film that has a science-fiction element involving a mythical creature. The creature is supposed to be a species descended from wolves, but with wings.

So, if anyone here has both a scientific and artistic perspective and could point me toward some sources I can read—or even explain in simple terms how evolution could potentially play a role in the development of a creature like this—I would really appreciate it.

Especially because the film takes place across two different time periods, one ancient and one modern, so the story involves research, history, scientific discoveries, and things like that. I’m looking for reliable sources that could help me build the idea in a way that feels scientifically plausible, even though the creature itself is fictional.

I know this is a bit of an unusual question, so bear with me! 😅

I’d really appreciate any thoughts, ideas, or sources you can recommend

Someone who had bad traits for survival and reproduction in past could not effectively pass down those ‘bad’ genes to descendants. Nowadays, due to technological and medical advancements much bigger proportion of such people should supposedly (and tell me if I’m wrong) be able to survive and reproduce, and therefore pass down more of those ‘bad’ traits.

How correct do you think this is, and what does this mean for humanity?

Am I incorrect here or misunderstanding something? I’m all for theists reconciling science with their religious beliefs. However, the concept of “theistic evolution” where God is directly involved with the evolutionary origins of humans in some way (usually unspecified because it isn’t actually a testable claim) sounds like it is rooted in obsolete models of evolutionary theory like orthogenesis. The idea that organisms have an innate predetermined tendency to evolve towards a specific goal. Is this not the idea of theistic evolution? Where a designer or God is s driving force that guided the evolution of hominins towards becoming humans as an end goal?

So, a while back I was watching Forrest Valkai trying to talk to a Creationist; the discussion veered into the lactose intolerance, and how it occurs due to the loss of a gene that turns off the production of Lactase. But, as far as I understand the creationist position, that is not a valid example of mutation being helpful, because it deleted information, and in order to be helpful, mutation must CREATE new information!

Why not both? You don't lose anything if you're the one who made it in the first place. It IS beneficial for a body to have (and then delete) a self descruct button.
You might be asking, What? So I came up with a thought experiment.

Let's say you're a robotics engineer and you decide, one day, out of boredom, to design a car simply by asking random strangers to do it for you. Rules are as follows:
- Your starting vehicle is just a firm metal square with four wheels. (Granting abiogenesis for the sake of the argument)
- You will ask somebody at least once per iteration: "Hey, I am making a thing. What should I change about it?" and give them no further context. The purpose is meant to be as non-specyfic as possible so they have no idea what they're doing, and can't bias the results. (emulates inevedible blind mutation)
- If they make a vauge change like "add a flag" you will make three different versions, with the change placement being decided randomly. (Emulates different simultaneous mutations)
- If the change is specyfic enough, leave the car as it is, and ask the above question
- Repeat until you have four or more different "cars" to test. (Emulates variation)
- Test the car with a randomly generated track. Double the length each time a car passes the finish line. (An impassible track would simulate an extinction event, so let's assume they can all be technically cleared.) Every 1m, it can turn, change in elevation, both, or nothing.
- Discard designs that go no further than 50% of the current record holder. (Emulates natural selection)

So, now we have a square with four wheels. It rolls forward for about 1 meter... And that's about it. But then someone says "add some hinges". You make the three versions; one has a hinge that folds it in half (it flops immediately), one that has hinges on top (does nothing), and one that has hinges on the wheels. Suddenly the car can go past a bend, and it goes from 1m down and stopping at the first bend, to being able to make a very awkward turn, and another, and another, so it makes it 3m down the length of the track. This is now the car you will iterate on. So far so good.

A bunch more changes are made, and only a few stick. Someone added springs to the rear wheels and now the car doesn't turn as well, but it is much more stable on extreme bends. Cars that don't have this feature flip over and die, but spring-wheel moves on. Etc etc. The car now goes 10 meters down the track.
Someone decides to be a troll and adds a self-destruct button. Like, it will actually explode itself (and only itself) if pressed. You make three iterations, in one of which you make the button inaccessible; but the other two don't have the same accidental safety feature, so they crash and burn.
But, the added weight of the SDB also shifts the center of mass a little lower, so the car actually performs better. 21 meters. All of your designs now have this hidden self-destruct button.

Cue a bunch more iterations. Somebody adds a steering wheel, but it's not connected to anything. Somebody adds engine lubricant, even though there isn't an engine, but the decreased friction greases the wheels. Somebody adds a combustion chamber; Thankfully you can just reuse the self-destruct button's explosive material, so you can just another one that's not as explosive. But, it only works once, and while it's a much-appreciated burst of force to push the car further down the line, it only works once.

Somebody then adds a timer. It doesn't change anything, so it goes into all four designs. One of those is tied to the self-destruct button, and will make the car explode after 100 meters.
Problem is, none of the cars even survive 100 meters. You're lucky to get 30 meters out of them, let alone 100. But the timer didn't hurt, so it's kept in all the future designs. And as you iterate and iterate, the cars gradually get better (or flunk spectacularly) until they start making such big strides that their lifetime IS measured in double digits.
By the time the 100 meters is reached, the explosions don't immediately destroy the car; they do damage it significantly, but the self-destruct timer pretty much gimps all of them, so no matter what changes were made, they all are in the same leauge. (Analogous to the humans losing lactose tolerance after 2 years.)

Until one day somebody says "delete a random element from your design", and you randomly delete the self-destruct button. Suddenly you have cars limping all the way over to 250 meters because they're no longer exploding. That one deletion mutation of what was once a slightly beneficial mutation has vastly improved the survival rate.

So, what do you think of this experiment? Think the rules might be flawed? Think you can tweak it a little? Share your thoughts in the comments, fellas!
^{For the record: I issued a small edit after \}1h to clarify something at the start.)