|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What drove bird evolution? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Take it to the other thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mespo Member (Idle past 2916 days) Posts: 158 From: Mesopotamia, Ohio, USA Joined: |
..and guess what, they can FLY!
I bought them direct from the hatchery for the egg-laying abilities, so they didn't "pollute" themselves with other varieties. They are allowed to free range. They go about the barn yard and pastures and eat what they want. They are tagged and I've had neighbors call from several miles away asking if I want such and such a chicken back. "Just let her be, she'll fly home to roost in the evening. Let me know if she trashed your garden and I'll compensate you". But for the most part, they stick around because that's where the rooster is and guarenteed safe roosting. And by allowing to free range, they keep their ideal body weight which means they can haul ass if they have to (HAWKS, DOGS, CHILDREN UNDER 4 FEET). (:raig
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The simplest explaination for them is the possible one, i.e. that birds were genetically re-engineered from some previous creature Sure. Since the "genetic engineer" you refer to can only be natural processes, you've essentially repeated the evolutionary explanation with different language. Birds indeed were "genetically re-engineered" in the same way a lot of engineers are engineering things these days - natural selection and random mutation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
redwolf Member (Idle past 5822 days) Posts: 185 From: alexandria va usa Joined: |
I never said chickens couldn't fly; I said, they couldn't fly DECENTLY. They can't fly terribly far, terribly high, or terribly fast. You don't see them 500' overhead the way you do normal birds.
Ducks for instance are ballpark for the same size as chickens, and fly perfectly well because their wings are the right size for ducks. If there were anything to evolution, chickens would regain the ability to fly as well as ducks fly. There isn't, and they don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
If there were anything to evolution, chickens would regain the ability to fly as well as ducks fly. Why? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
redwolf Member (Idle past 5822 days) Posts: 185 From: alexandria va usa Joined: |
quote: "can only be a natural process"? Why's that?? Recent studies in fact indicate that humans appear to have been fabricated using the same techniques which we ourselves are now starting to use in bio-engineering projects, which are anything but natural: http://www.bearfabrique.org/evorants/bioEngineering.html
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6053 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
If there were anything to evolution, chickens would regain the ability to fly as well as ducks fly. There isn't, and they don't You are either joking, or seriously do not understand even the basic concepts of evolution. By your logic, the ostrich should be able to fly, because flying is somehow better than not-flying. This is your own clouded viewpoint of what constitutes "better". To you, it may seem that it would be better for a reptile to have legs than not, but in some environments legless reptiles fare better than those with legs. Also, you should take care to use domestic (artificially selected) animals as examples to disprove evolution. For example, it's like saying we should expect to see dachsunds become wolf-like over our lifetimes, and that because we do not, evolution must be incorrect. Now imagine we dropped a large herd of dachsunds in the wilds of Alaska, they managed to survive, and we came back in 10,000 generations: if the descendants remained absolutely unchanged from the members of the founding population, that would be some evidence to counter evolutionary thought (unless dachsunds are somehow already perfectly adapted to life in Alaska, which I doubt). It is more likely that if the population managed to survive, they would have noticeable adaptations, such as much thicker coats.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6053 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
Recent studies in fact indicate that humans appear to have been fabricated using the same techniques which we ourselves are now starting to use in bio-engineering projects, which are anything but natural: Redwolf, please explain how you think the linked article shows that human DNA was fabricated. It doesn't. As an example, many researchers use fluorescent proteins found in jellyfish as reporter genes in their experiments. Does this mean the original jellyfish gene was "fabricated" by a designer? Absolutely not. Just because humans use biological processes in research, does not mean the biological processes were fabricated by some other entity. The examples the article describes all fit evolutionary thought - indeed much of the work cited was done by evolutionary geneticists. I'm not sure you understand your own "evidence".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
"can only be a natural process"? Why's that?? Because the only two observed entities with the design power to do the job are natural processes and humans, and humans simply weren't there at the time.
Recent studies in fact indicate that humans appear to have been fabricated using the same techniques which we ourselves are now starting to use in bio-engineering projects Right, fabricated by natural processes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1535 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
This thread is beginning to look alot like redwolfs 'different gravity ' thread..all these assertions and nothing to back it up. Why should anyone think that natural selection and random mutation was not what drove bird evolution? Sure there are some creationist sites out there that preport the same (how could birds have adapted if there are examples of birds that do not fly.) If its true of birds then the whole theory of evolution must be false. Well it is not true of birds, ancient birds have left fossilized remains. How does a creationist explain the fossil record. How does a creationist explain the Galapagos finch data of how finches have evolved? Adaptation of organisms through natural selection is such a elegant model . Anyone who cares to learn the basics of evolution can attest to it's common sense premises. Why is it so hard to understand? Chickens do not fly well...Ostrichs do not fly at all, and neither do Penguins. If there is a niche to exploit then nature has found a way to allow organisms to fill that niche. It is really that simple. If there is no advantage to change then the organism remains the same.. this is true of many extant creatures such as cockroaches, coelocanth fish, natalis, turtles, and thousands of other creatures that were contemporary with dinosaurs. This is a no brainer. Either present some compelling data to shed some validity to your premise or lets move on and agree to disagree.
"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DBlevins Member (Idle past 3806 days) Posts: 652 From: Puyallup, WA. Joined: |
quote: Is there a 30 lb. limit in our present world? Is that too heavy to fly...? The heaviest flying bird is the Kori Bustard of Africa (Ardeotis kori), a number of specimens have been scientifically recorded weighing 19kg (42lb) and heavier specimens have been reported but not confirmed. Close runner-ups are the Eurasian Bustard (Otis tarda) and the Mute Swan (Cygnus olor) both of which have been recorded at 18kg or (40lb). quick search amazing world of birds
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
redwolf Member (Idle past 5822 days) Posts: 185 From: alexandria va usa Joined: |
quote: What you might have noticed, is that I reply to posts which strike me as halfway serious, but not to anything which starts off with some sort of indication of the poster being a legend in his own mind or anything like that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
redwolf Member (Idle past 5822 days) Posts: 185 From: alexandria va usa Joined: |
You might get an exception at 40 lbs once every 50 years or so which can still fly. Most of what I've read has indicated that bustards get up to around 33 lbs, as I'd stated. Eagles get to around 25 lbs and then they start to have insurmountable problems taking off and landing. The argentinian teratorn, however, an ancient bird very close to an eagle in structure, had a 25' wingspan and weight estimates vary from around 170 to around 250. That can't happen in our present world due to gravity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6053 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
I reply to posts which strike me as halfway serious, but not to anything which starts off with some sort of indication of the poster being a legend in his own mind or anything like that. The reason I responded as I did, was because your post did not "strike me as halfway serious." You posted that in order for evolution to be true, domestic chickens would have to be evolving flight akin to that seen in ducks. The idea itself is absurd, and the fate of the theory of evolution definitely does not rest on the idea. I started with the "you are possibly joking" phrase because I thought you were perhaps being facetious, sarcastic, with your comment - as many others have occasion to do in this forum. Nice how that somehow excuses you from responding to any of the points I've made. I'm still particularly interested in having you explain what in your linked article demonstrates that human DNA was fabricated by a designer...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Why wouldn't a 25' wingspan be sufficient in today's gravity?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024