Bird Evolution

So I was riding in a plane the other day and it got me thinking--to design something like a plane is absolutely incredible. Whoever designed it had to have a very good grasp of aerodynamic principles. The plane has to be capable of flying over long distances, but even more complicated is something like landing and takeoff.
Now something like a plane cannot arise on its own--it requires a designer. How about something far more complex, something like a bird, which can not only fly, land, and takeoff, but can **reproduce**, mate with a bird of the opposite sex, and produce another bird! How much more intelligent should the designer behind a bird be?!
Now there is a prevalent idea in scientific circles that birds "evolved" from a reptilian ancestor. So basically every feathered, warm-blooded creature today that has wings (flamingoes, hummingbirds, penguins, hawks, any kind of bird), can be traced back to something that's *cold-blooded*, has no feathers, and instead has scales. On the very surface, this seems far-fetched, but let's take a closer look.1)There are observed similarities between reptiles and birds. Furthermore creatures have been found that have characteristics of birds and reptiles, so-called "transitional forms". By this token, 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? No, the idea is as preposterous as saying modern birds evolved from ancient reptiles!!2)The very idea that flight evolved is full of problems. 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". If creatures that are terrestrial gradually evolved wings, they would have difficulty walking--why would it think of flapping those structures to soar through the sky? 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.
3)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. Just the way a plane with some of its parts missing is INCAPABLE of flight, likewise a so-called transitional form between reptiles and birds (one that has not yet evolved all the structures necessary for flight) could not have survived either--it would be a lame bird, neither capable of flight nor walking.
4)Finally, as a critique to the idea that flight could have somehow "naturally" evolved: We wouldn't expect something like a plane to either develop from something simpler, like a car, or form spontaneously from a pile of junk parts lying around. Why would we expect aerodynamic structures like the wings on a bird, or a lightweight hollow skeleton found in birds, to develop spontaneously, on its own? Ok, in the former case, we're talking about iron/aluminum atoms, whereas in the latter it's carbon/hydrogen atoms--but the principle is the same, something as complex as the wing on a plane or the wing on a bird requires an intelligent designer. I don't know why evolutionists shy away from this notion of God creating the various CREATures that we see.Cheers,
Monsieur Lynx

Okay, so you yourself are able to see that something like a plane requires an intelligent designer--that is, to construct such computer modelling requires the aid of some programmer, someone who is intelligent--it can't happen on its own. The claim made by evolution is that something like creatures *incapable* of flight, through an accumulation of genetic changes, natural selection, etc. etc. acquired wings capable of supporting the animal's body weight, having a shape conducive to flight. Such a claim is certainly not corroborated by evidence!!
I think you're apparently having difficulties visualizing the evolution of creatures incapable of flight into creatures that can fly. So initially you have these creatures that have forelimbs structured for walking. If those forelimbs gradually start evolving into wings, over time you ARE going to get a creature that is not capable of flight (since the wings are not quite capable of supporting the creature's weight, not quite aerodynamic, whatever).
Okay I'm calling your bluff--exactly WHAT evidence supports the evolution of birds from from archosaurs/reptiles/whatever? Please don't lamely repeat the similar characteristics argument. Take a good look at that observation I pointed out--does the presence of a bill and the ability to lay eggs suggest that a duck-billed platypus evolved from a duck? You see one DOES observe similar characteristics, say among birds and reptiles, birds and mammals, but one needn't assume that they either share common ancestry OR that one has evolved from the other.
Let's take a look at the fossil layers argument: To continue the alleged link between a duck and duck-billed platypus, consider the following situation. We find fossils of a duck embedded in a particular layer of rock. In higher rock layers, fossils of the duck-billed platypus are found. Clearly, one observes similarities among the fossils, and one can **SEE** that the duck evolved into the duck-billed platypus. That is, the stratiographic evidence is very conclusive, isn't it? I'm simply borrowing the same argument used to show that creatures like hawks, bluebirds, penguins that exist today are descended from archosaurs (literally "ruling reptiles").
Flight "gradient"? Yes, there are creatures that are only capable of gliding. But surely you don't believe that creatures like chickens can eventually evolve the ability to fly like a hawk do you? There are inconceivable difficulties with that. Just the way it seems strange that creatures today like chickens and "flying squirrels" can eventually achieve flight, likewise, there's no reason to assume that over millions of years creatures only capable of gliding can achieve the ability to fly thousands of miles. We can instead say that the various birds were *designed* for their particular niches in nature. So we don't run into the problems of explaining how the wings of a hawk evolved from something simpler--it's irreducibly complex. And the similarities of birds can be explained very nicely by pointing to a common DESIGNER (does that contradict any of the genetic evidence found?)
I would urge you not to make claims you can't support like "the genetic evidence contradicts the idea of a Designer". How exactly do the observed genetic similarities **contradict** a common Designer behind all the life we see. Separate creation explains the diversity among the life we see, yet you would struggle to explain how, even with the class aves, 2 creatures as diverse as a penguin and a hummingbird evolved from a common ancestor.Cheers,
Monsieur Lynx

Yes, don't take the analogy too far there. 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.
Brilliant observation--let's talk about animals mating now shall we? 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. That is, yes once you've created, say the first man and woman, they don't continue to produce EXACT clones of each other. If you went up to a fundamentalist Christian and asked why not all the humans today are clones of Adam & Eve, the intelligent folks would probably say that there must have been small accumulated changes in the population. Look at the evolution of bacteria (they adapt to antibiotics), the evolution of a flower from one kind of flower, the evolution of horses. In each of these cases, without exception, you notice that NO new structures are forming, but rather existing structures are changing. 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!
Want to know something else about mating? I have a mother and father that are human, both their parents are human, all 4 of my grandparents have parents that are human. Logically following this back, why would I expect to find anything that's not human? Or, even more problematic for evolution--why the HELL would I find creatures in my family tree that are either asexual (you will probably argue that sexual reproduction evolved from creatures that reproduce asexually, right?), OR creatures that lay eggs!! Please, do give evidence that mammals have descended from reptilian ancestors, or that asexually reproducing creatures can somehow evolve into male and females!!
Fine, you claim that I'm not providing enough evidence? Why don't you provide some evidence for evolution (the claim that ALL life is descended from a common ancestor, or even that all mammals share a common ancestor, or that animals and plants share a common ancestor). Whatever evidence you provide for evolution, I'm sure it can be accommodated perfectly well into the creationist view of the origin of life.
Hey genius, why would a creature on the ground get the idea to fly? I think you sort of have a bit of problem if creatures get the idea into their heads that they can "fly through the sky". See, the problem is that not only do you need to evolve the structures but the behavior for flight as well--if they don't simultaneously happen, you either have winged creatures that still try to walk with the "evolved" structures, or you have creatures trying to fly that haven't yet evolved aerodynamic wings.
Yes, birds are a product of biological reproduction, I don't dispute that, a chick comes from a chicken and a rooster each of which has a chicken and rooster as its mother and father, that came from a chicken and rooster. True, there are changes in a population, I don't dispute that either. All that would suggest is the first chicken and rooster that was created was most certainly not like the chicken and rooster today. However, your claim would be entirely different--something along the line of: a chick hatched from an egg layed by a chicken which hatched from.. ..lizards.. ..amphibians..fish..god knows what fish evolved from...something asexual...a bacteria...until finally we get to the origin of all life...something nonliving, a self-replicating molecule. Wow, there must be SOOOO much evidence to support that huh? Why don't you reevaluate the theory of evolution, and the theory of creation, and see what the actual evidence is more consistent with? With creation, you only need to explain how various creatures were initially designed, after that they simply produce their own kinds, just as we observe. With evolution, you've got to explain how creatures like fish moved out onto land and instead of suffocating "magically" developed structures to breathe on land, how flightless archosaurs/reptiles/whatever "magically" developed wings, a hollow skeleton, and the behavior for flight, as well as a whole mess of other problems.

​

Keep scratching your head about the "mystery of how flight evolved"--you might get some answers,
Monsieur Lynx

​

But if you are interested in a more logical explanation, consider the possibility that birds were **designed** for flight. Take a look at the evidence found for evolution and see if it would still be there if we have separate creation.