Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 10:44 AM
44 online now:
AZPaul3, Diomedes, GDR, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle, vimesey (7 members, 37 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,545 Year: 3,582/19,786 Month: 577/1,087 Week: 167/212 Day: 9/25 Hour: 3/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
Author Topic:   Evolution of bird lungs from reptile lungs impossible?
pesto
Member (Idle past 3664 days)
Posts: 63
From: Chicago, IL
Joined: 04-05-2006


Message 31 of 33 (302939)
04-10-2006 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by arachnophilia
10-11-2005 8:39 PM


Re: bad paleontology strikes again
From the creationist website you linked to.

quote:
Moreover, just having wings is not sufficient for a land organism to fly. Land-dwelling organisms are devoid of many other structural mechanisms that birds use for flying. For example, the bones of birds are much lighter than those of land-dwelling organisms. Their lungs function in a very different way. They have a different muscular and skeletal system and a very specialised heart-circulatory system. These features are pre-requisites of flying needed at least as much as wings. All these mechanisms had to exist at the same time and altogether; they could not have formed gradually by being "accumulated". This is why the theory asserting that land organisms evolved into aerial organisms is completely fallacious.

I wonder how bats compare as far as these "pre-requisites" are concerned. Anyone here knowledgable on this subject? How do bat lungs compare to bird lungs?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by arachnophilia, posted 10-11-2005 8:39 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by arachnophilia, posted 04-10-2006 10:47 PM pesto has not yet responded

  
extremophile
Member (Idle past 3671 days)
Posts: 53
Joined: 08-23-2003


Message 32 of 33 (302944)
04-10-2006 1:31 PM


As far as I know, only birds have much differntiated lungs compared with their extant closer relatives.

What I think that is more weird in that quote was the part

All these mechanisms had to exist at the same time and altogether; they could not have formed gradually by being "accumulated".

It´s simply stated, but I just can´t see any logic in the affirmation


"Science comits suicide when it adopts a creed."
Thomas H. Huxley
  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 54 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 33 of 33 (303083)
04-10-2006 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by pesto
04-10-2006 1:18 PM


Re: bad paleontology strikes again
I wonder how bats compare as far as these "pre-requisites" are concerned. Anyone here knowledgable on this subject? How do bat lungs compare to bird lungs?

heh, that would be beautiful. unfortunately, i don't know squat about bat. though i am pretty sure they lack the lung function of birds, considering that birds are the ONLY animals that breath this way. other than, apparently, theropod dinosaurs. there's the other reason this argument is totally specious:

theropod skeletons contain, gradually, more and more of specialized fusing and hollowing of bones seen in birds. we know they had air-sacs, like birds. they have the right muscular and skeletal, and probably circulator system. while they're not neccessarily pre-requisites for flight, they do help -- and they apparently help land dwelling theropod dinosaurs, too.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by pesto, posted 04-10-2006 1:18 PM pesto has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019