Just my opinion (creationist here), but maybe this is really further proof that evolution is a crock. (Darwin even rejected his own theory, saying it was impossible and that it was just something he dreamed up, no evidence or scientific proof has ever been found to back it up.) :dubious:
Ignoring the blatant parenthetical falsehood, how does “humans can’t fly” serve to disprove evolution?
Um, what? Evolution is one of the best confirmed facts in science. And I’ve certainly never heard that he rejected his own theory; that sounds like one of the standard baseless “he converted to the True Belief on his deathbed” stories that gets told about well known atheists and skeptics.
Obviously, if evolution was true we’d have evolved with propellers!
We can. We just need to manipulate our environment more than other flying species in order to do so.
True flight has only evolved four times–in insects, in pterosaurs, in birds, and in bats.
These creatures didn’t one day decide that wings would be an advantage, and they sprouted fully formed. In each case, wings evolved from earlier structures that provided some advantage to the creature.
For example, feathers evolved long before birds, and we see all sorts of small feathered dinosaurs long before those dinosaurs evolved flight.
So in order to evolve wings, an animal has to have some sort of already existing structures that exist for some other purpose, but can also be used as wings. Yes, flight is advantageous. But how do you get from here to there? For most animals, it would be biomechanically impossible for them to evolve flight.
Cite for your extremely dubious claim concerning Charles Darwin, please.
Well, what about angels, huh? How do you explain them?
One word: airplanes.
Ignoring the ludicrous Darwin aside, what proof is this?
You are displaying a remarkable lack of understanding of evolution.
Evolution does NOT produce optimal results. We are not necessarily the fastest, strongest, tallest, or smartest we could possibly be as a species.
It looks like you think “survival of the fittest” means we should have the best set of attributes for individual success.
Not so. “Survival of those species (NOT individual members of species) able to reproduce themselves” would be more correct but less catchy.
I think it’s helpful to look at the big picture. Life forms don’t evolve in a vacuum, they evolve in a complex environment that includes all other life forms. It doesn’t make too much sense to ask, “Why did animal x not evolve characteristic y?” Well, some animals did evolve the ability to fly. Some didn’t. We’re one of the ones that didn’t. We don’t have gills, webbed feet, etc., either, though in fantasy world one could see how they might be useful.
Okay, so supposedly it was Lady Hope that made the claim about Charles, and there has been a war over it ever since, and no solid proof either way. I googled it and got several sides of the story, and when I see different sides taken, I know someone’s lying somewhere, and I don’t trust any of it. What I do know is that science is supposed to have conclusive evidence for or against something before calling it true. Evolutionists are just like any other person, they live to be 60 to 90 years old give or take, but somewhere in their limited time on earth, they got the idea that the planet was millions of years old. Try imagining a million, trust me you can’t. This is a never ending debate, no one will win, ever, I’ve seen creationists turn evolutionist and vice versa. It’s pointless, no one will know. For me, the clincher comes when I think about being alone in the universe, I’d rather die believing in a creator and simply go into the cosmos if there isn’t one, than die an evolutionist and stand before the throne of the Almighty and try explaining why I wouldn’t believe in Him. With that, I bow out gracefully, I do not wish to argue this further, no point, I just wanted to state my opinion on why we, as humans, do not have wings, and to me there’s a very good reason, cause we weren’t given any. Have fun looking for those half made eyeballs BTW. See ya’.
That’s not my understanding of how science works. Scientists observe what’s going on, and develop a hypothesis or theory to explain what’s going on. They then share that theory with other scientists (i.e., publishing their theory), and, if enough scientists in that field agree that the theory does a better job of explaining things than any other current theory.
Most (if not all) theories aren’t perfect (and are acknowledged as such by their creators), and they only stand until another scientist (perhaps with additional data, perhaps with better equipment) is able to improve upon it, or develop an entirely different theory. I know of very few theories which are presented as “true” or “facts”.
Evolution is no different. Most researchers in the biological sciences (creationists aside) feel that the theory of evolution is the best explanation we have – today – for the biological processes by which the species arose.
For some reason, many creationists have decided that anyone who subscribes to the theory of evolution must be atheists, which simply isn’t the case.
You can believe in god and still believe in the hard scientific facts that evolution had proven thousands of times over if you want.
Just to add to the many good points, early humans lived on the plains where, even if you had a modern hang glider, you’d be hard pressed to find a launch point. If we started as very small mammals living in trees in the rain forest, it may have been different and we might have started hopping from tree to tree, then gliding, then eventually became something like bats. But where we’re from, it was best to get better at living on the ground. Which we did. 6000 years ago. 
BTW, I think that you should make the acquaintance of one Blaise Pascal, and his Wager.
Person A: Two plus Two is Four.
Person B: No, you fool! Two plus Two is clearly Seven.
Bosstrain: I guess this issue will never be settled in our lifetime.
i.e. not all “sides” carry equal weight, and summarily discounting every statement with which anybody disagrees does not seem like a very wise strategy.
Fundamentally, it’s the same reason your car doesn’t fly. It would be a lot more expensive and it would be much less effective as a car.
Quoth Bosstrain:
In the context of the theory of evolution, it makes perfect sense that humans can’t fly. But isn’t this proof that creationism is a crock? I mean, if God gave us opposable thumbs and big brains and so on, why didn’t He also give us wings?
and it would be a pusher for use in air or water.