Bird Evolution

quote:

---

Now something like a plane cannot arise on its own--it requires a designer.

---

Of course a plane needs a designer. Planes can not mate and produce more planes that are slightly different than their parents. Planes are not a biological construct. Planes do not change their design because of DNA mutations. Planes are a very poor analogy for the evolution of bird flight. You are also committing the fallacy of analogy. Instead of illustrating your points with analogies you use analogies as your only evidenciary support. This is not allowed in a logically constructed argument.

quote:

---

consider a duck-billed platypus--it has features of a duck ( a bill and lays eggs), and at the same time has many features of a mammal (hair, feeds its young, warm-blooded), would one consider a duck-billed platypus a transitional form between a duck and mammal?

---

If you have scaly skin, does that make you a reptile? This is how silly your argument is. Firstly, the "bill" of a platypus is made up of bone and skin just as your mouth is. The bill of a bird is made up of bony material, not skin. Therefore, they are not even close to comparable. Secondly, mammals do lay eggs. They are called monotremes. They also produce milk, which is the main characteristic that all mammals share, hence the term mammary glands. You might want to actually study up on comparative vertebrate anatomy and physiology when you have a chance.

quote:

---

For example, if creatures without the necessary structures for flight jumped out of trees, they would crash to the ground rather than "flying through the sky".

---

So they must have started out on the ground, DUH.

quote:

---

So wings, light-weight skeleton, etc. could not have evolved after the creature attempts to fly, nor could they have evolved before the creature attempts to fly.

---

Wings could have allowed terrestrial bipeds to run faster and turn corners faster, just like race cars use wings today. Once the got to a certain size they could have allowed jumps up into trees to avoid grounded predators. Next, they could be used to glide from tree to tree to avoid predators, just like flying squirrels. Next, they could be used for longer and longer glides, and then fully powered flight. There is nothing stopping this sort of process by slow, step by step modifications of a feathered archosaur (of which we have examples).

quote:

---

The creationist answer to this problem is very simply--look at something as complex as a plane, before it is shipped out, every part that is necessary for flight is carefully designed, and yes someone intelligent is required to design it. Why would it be any different for something like a bird.

---

It is different because birds are the product of biological reproduction and planes are the product of manual manipulation.

quote:

---

I don't know why evolutionists shy away from this notion of God creating the various CREATures that we see.

---

Many evolutionists don't shy away at all. They are called theistic evolutionists who think that God used natural evolution to create biodiversity just as he uses natural gravity to keep the planets in orbit around the sun. Why do you keep shying away from the transitional forms that have both reptile and avian characteristics? Why do creationists compare non-living constructs to biologically reproducing organisms? Because they are afraid of the evidence supporting evolution.This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 09-03-2004 03:39 PM

quote:

---

The analogy was simply used to show that if machines around us require an intelligent human designer, the life around us, far more complex than a machine requires a designer FAR more complex than a human.

---

But that is just the thing. You can't jump from machines to biological constructs. They are two different things. You are comminting the fallacy of analogy, saying that what happens to machines must also happen to biological systems. You have yet to show that machines and biological systems are comparable.

quote:

---

Yes, you're right, creatures do change. The DNA does undergo mutations. However, we notice that in any example of evolution, EXISTING structures change, no new structures are formed.

---

Feathers are evolved through changes of existing scales. Wings are evolved through changes of existing forelimbs. Lightweight bones are evolved from changes in denser bone. Need I go one?

quote:

---

You have to create a fully-formed creature (because something with say, half a lung, half a heart cannot survive) first, THEN have it evolve!

---

Another misnomer. You might want to actually study evolution as it is taught in science classes. Evolution produces fully evolved, fully formed organisms at every point in evolution. For example, the first land animal had both gills and lungs. There is not such thing as a half-formed organism. Archaeopteryx, for example, has both bird and reptillian characteristics yet it was fully formed. This is exactly what evolution predicts for transitional forms.

quote:

---

Please, do give evidence that mammals have descended from reptilian ancestors, or that asexually reproducing creatures can somehow evolve into male and females!!

---

We are talking about bird evolution. Let's solve that one first and then move one to your other questions.

quote:

---

Fine, you claim that I'm not providing enough evidence? Why don't you provide some evidence for evolution . . .

---

No, you made the first claim, so you need to support your assertions. Please show me why machines and biological systems seen in bird evolution should be compared side by side. Please show me why we should use the analogy of an airplane when discussing organisms that reproduce. Why should I offer counter-evidence when you have yet to support your argument.