What drove bird evolution?

I am a convert to belief in evolution, because i now see it really is a huge miracle, and i still choose to believe in God. Just to get that out of the way that i'm not attacking evolution, just trying to get a better understanding of it. Someone once explained to me, that evolution takes so long, that it's really so complicated that anyone who claims to understand it doesn't know what they're talking about. Which makes a lot of sense. Consider the time frame, and you'll realize that the factors involved in, and the events that shape evolution must ridiculously outnumber the small amount of nuerons we have in our brain.To the question. Evolution is about survival of the few that fit the best, so improbabilities become inevitibilities and most evolutionary events become convievable to imagine. But what about the evolution of flight? There must have been many steps before functional wings, but then why would there be any selection toward wings? What good does a partial wing do? What advantage were feathers, or featherlike things? I remember reading somewhere that feathers develop on a different part of the embreyo than scale, which they are supposed to be modified from. Will somebody please tell me how birds came to be?This message has been edited by PeriferaliiFocust, 06-21-2004 06:14 PM

---

Natural selection is not the whole of evolution and it's path is often altered by events outside of it's scope - most famously by a bloody great asteroid hitting the earth

Jar- I was afraid it would look like that, but i swear i wasn't reading any creationist crap, it was something i wondered about on my ownThanks alot for the info ned. that answers the question sufficently, thanks very much.Steen, what the crap is your problem? However your contempt to me is understandable, you probably get dumb creationist questions enough to want to kill someone, that's why i explained that my question was not coming from a creationist.With your miracle comment you are assuming my definition of 'miracle' is something that happens without the laws of physics, that's ridiculous. I know it is natural, but it is still amazing to think of what has come from a single original cell.Of coarse evolution is built on simple concepts, but in the large mass which life has replicated to, it builds up to huge complexities. That's evolution, simple working together to become complex and comprehensive. I think my point does make sense, you know how long evolution took right? I'm sure you know our existence is a blink in the span of it, so i'm not sure why you so passionately oppose the idea that it's simply to big for us to completely understand. We can study it, and learn a lot, but there is so much we don't know. If you don't think theres more to learn, than you my friend are not applying evolution, because it'll never be over.What i meant in referring to evolution as a belief is related to my understanding that we must accept everything on faith. The reason behind a belief doesn't have to be blind, however the fact is that you cant proove anything. Proove to me you haven't been dreaming your entire life and that your entire reality is a simulation. Until you can do that you must accept everything you see on what you choose to believe.And you really screwed that first point, with your final one. As you can see you first told me to understand, not blindly believe (i assure you i must understand something before choosing to believe it). And your last sentence told me to accept something with no explanation whatsoever on why i should. That would be blind belief.This message has been edited by PeriferaliiFocust, 06-21-2004 10:23 PMThis message has been edited by PeriferaliiFocust, 06-21-2004 10:26 PM

Steen, I see i made some assumptions about you too, i often get carried away when i think other people are judging me, apologies.About the subject of reality : It is rather important to me to realize that everything is about choice(however i cant proove this). I also choose to believe that what we see with our senses is real, but maintain that there are other possibilites. I guess it's a kind of pointless point that i often annoy people with my instistance of. Mainly the reason I hold this belief is to support freedom, and that i (or anyone) am not bound by obligation to accept what other people tell me is 'prooven'. We all are free to question everything and find our own reasons.i did find my source about the location of feathers on the embryo, it is unfortunately a creationist article, and i cannot find his source for that supposed discovery. I however do not think he would stupidly outright lie about it, his source may be shaky, maybe outdated and resolved, but it came from somewhere and i want to reconcile it.
I'll try to find a more reliable source on the subject, meanwhile -Thats the site : http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/archaeopteryx.shtmlthis is what it says:
Feathers develop from a different part of the bird’s embryo than scales do from a reptile’s embryo. Therefore, a person who supports the theory of evolution would have to show how one could have replaced the other in an evolutionary mannerwithout violating the rules of biology. (Good luck! ) That is, the feathers were not an evolutionary modification of scales, but rather had to appear all on their own. This would be like seeing a human baby born with feathers or scales.This message has been edited by PeriferaliiFocust, 06-21-2004 11:04 PM

OK i swear this is the last time i'll nitpick someones reply, there may be no logical defense to why, but i choose to proceed anyway.[No, you just sound like someone that has read a news article on a topic related to evolution and decided that what you just read is as much as anyone will ever know about evolution. In fact, you sound like someone that assumes that your professor knows as little as you.]If i accepted it as as much as anyone would ever know, why did i come ask to know more? I promise i didn't come to debate, i wanted a question answered, thats better than making my own assumptions i think.[If you are going to start making up your own definitions for these common English words, make sure you tell people about it to avoid misunderstandings.]I don't believe in using language exactly as it is originally meant, becuase language as it is isn't comprehensive enough, and maybe to comprehensive in areas unnecisary to communication, which should be the purpose of language. But you're right, i shouldn't assume everyone knows that about me, i'll be more careful next time.[Again, you really sound like someone that knows absolutely nothing about evolutionary theories.]I think you have to admit that here you're just attacking me cause you think i'm stupid. Complex modern organisms, evolved from simpler original organisms that adapted to their enviroment by natural selection. I know that's different wording, but it means exactly the same thing. You can freakin read that in a biology book, i don't know what you're talking about when you say that means i know basically nothing.- which may be true, but how does my comment you dissagreed with go against the theory of evolution?[Evolution happens in short spurts over long periods of time. In other words, an evolutionary event can happen in a relatively short time.]I know what punctuated equilibrium is. My point is still true, we don't know EVERYTHING about what happened between now and 3.5 billion years ago when cyanobacteria changed the atmosphere to allow the evolution all the organisms we now know.[You sound like one of the preachers I've encountered in the past. He claimed that we could never understand god's work, therefore we should never use the "brain" to understand anything related to god.]Again it seems like you are stretching what i said just to make an attack on me. Do YOU know much about the different eras in evolution?
Prokaryotes have been around 3.5 BILLION, humans have been around .2 MILLION. I don't assume you don't know this, i assume you do, which is why i am so confused why you dispute that i said our existence is like a blink. I heard that in science, not from a preacher, most of which would claim the opposite, that the planet has only been around for 7,000 years, and humans have been around since then (minus 6 days).[Um... no. That is totally against the scientific method. I think you are imposing the creationist method on the scientific method, which have made you very confused.]I addressed that, and what i said was completely logical. It doesn't seem like you're thinking about what your saying. Whatever, i'm tired of arguing.[go take a college course or read a book. Just stop by your local library to check out some books on the topic.]I have checked out some evolution books from my local library (earlier this month), haven't gotten very far yet cause i've been busy lately, but what i have read is very interesting. I will take some college classes once i finish highschool. I'm taking Biology classes right now, i don't see a point in telling you my credentials which often tell little about actual knoweledge.[The point is, if you want to have your question answered and fully understand the answer given to you]Only a few people have even answered my question (not including you).
However i'm not angry at you cause the debate was kinda fun (even though my original intention was simply to find an answer to a question)This message has been edited by PeriferaliiFocust, 06-21-2004 11:57 PM

I do the same thing Lam, it's actually quite funny now that its through.Well Steen, that bubble burstage sucks, i guess i was niave to think i could trust someone to tell the truth. Not surprising though.
Thanks for the the links.