Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 68 (9078 total)
145 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, kjsimons, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), nwr (5 members, 140 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 894,973 Year: 6,085/6,534 Month: 278/650 Week: 48/278 Day: 48/27 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What drove bird evolution?
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 1416 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 61 of 145 (124704)
07-15-2004 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by redwolf
07-15-2004 11:50 AM


Take it to the other thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by redwolf, posted 07-15-2004 11:50 AM redwolf has not replied

  
Mespo
Member (Idle past 2196 days)
Posts: 158
From: Mesopotamia, Ohio, USA
Joined: 09-19-2002


Message 62 of 145 (124705)
07-15-2004 12:02 PM


I own chickens, Redwolf
..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


Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by redwolf, posted 07-15-2004 2:13 PM Mespo has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 778 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 63 of 145 (124707)
07-15-2004 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by redwolf
07-15-2004 11:54 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by redwolf, posted 07-15-2004 11:54 AM redwolf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by redwolf, posted 07-15-2004 2:19 PM crashfrog has replied

  
redwolf
Member (Idle past 5102 days)
Posts: 185
From: alexandria va usa
Joined: 04-13-2004


Message 64 of 145 (124722)
07-15-2004 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Mespo
07-15-2004 12:02 PM


Re: I own chickens, Redwolf
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Mespo, posted 07-15-2004 12:02 PM Mespo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by jar, posted 07-15-2004 2:15 PM redwolf has not replied
 Message 67 by pink sasquatch, posted 07-15-2004 2:29 PM redwolf has replied
 Message 81 by Steen, posted 07-16-2004 12:19 AM redwolf has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 65 of 145 (124723)
07-15-2004 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by redwolf
07-15-2004 2:13 PM


Re: I own chickens, Redwolf
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by redwolf, posted 07-15-2004 2:13 PM redwolf has not replied

  
redwolf
Member (Idle past 5102 days)
Posts: 185
From: alexandria va usa
Joined: 04-13-2004


Message 66 of 145 (124726)
07-15-2004 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by crashfrog
07-15-2004 12:15 PM


genetic engineering
quote:

Sure. Since the "genetic engineer" you refer to can only be natural processes, you've essentially repeated the evolutionary explanation with different language.

"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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by crashfrog, posted 07-15-2004 12:15 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by pink sasquatch, posted 07-15-2004 2:39 PM redwolf has not replied
 Message 69 by crashfrog, posted 07-15-2004 2:40 PM redwolf has not replied
 Message 77 by biochem_geek, posted 07-15-2004 10:15 PM redwolf has not replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 5334 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 67 of 145 (124729)
07-15-2004 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by redwolf
07-15-2004 2:13 PM


save the texas prairie chicken!
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by redwolf, posted 07-15-2004 2:13 PM redwolf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by redwolf, posted 07-15-2004 4:10 PM pink sasquatch has replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 5334 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 68 of 145 (124731)
07-15-2004 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by redwolf
07-15-2004 2:19 PM


Re: genetic engineering
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".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by redwolf, posted 07-15-2004 2:19 PM redwolf has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 778 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 69 of 145 (124732)
07-15-2004 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by redwolf
07-15-2004 2:19 PM


"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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by redwolf, posted 07-15-2004 2:19 PM redwolf has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 815 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 70 of 145 (124741)
07-15-2004 3:02 PM


This thread is beginning to turn foul
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 3087 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 71 of 145 (124749)
07-15-2004 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by redwolf
07-14-2004 2:39 PM


Heaviest flying bird
quote:
In the cases of the ostrich, moa, and other larger flightless birds, in the ones which survived the changes in gravity which killed off the larger dinosaurs, they had gotten too heavy to fly (~30-lb limit in our present world) and the wings became vestigial.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by redwolf, posted 07-14-2004 2:39 PM redwolf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by redwolf, posted 07-15-2004 4:15 PM DBlevins has not replied

  
redwolf
Member (Idle past 5102 days)
Posts: 185
From: alexandria va usa
Joined: 04-13-2004


Message 72 of 145 (124760)
07-15-2004 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by pink sasquatch
07-15-2004 2:29 PM


Re: save the texas prairie chicken!
quote:

You are either joking, or seriously do not understand even the basic concepts of evolution.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by pink sasquatch, posted 07-15-2004 2:29 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by pink sasquatch, posted 07-15-2004 4:28 PM redwolf has not replied

  
redwolf
Member (Idle past 5102 days)
Posts: 185
From: alexandria va usa
Joined: 04-13-2004


Message 73 of 145 (124764)
07-15-2004 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by DBlevins
07-15-2004 3:32 PM


Re: Heaviest flying bird
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by DBlevins, posted 07-15-2004 3:32 PM DBlevins has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Loudmouth, posted 07-15-2004 4:34 PM redwolf has replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 5334 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 74 of 145 (124770)
07-15-2004 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by redwolf
07-15-2004 4:10 PM


Re: save the texas prairie chicken!
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...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by redwolf, posted 07-15-2004 4:10 PM redwolf has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 145 (124775)
07-15-2004 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by redwolf
07-15-2004 4:15 PM


Re: Heaviest flying bird
quote:
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.

Why wouldn't a 25' wingspan be sufficient in today's gravity?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by redwolf, posted 07-15-2004 4:15 PM redwolf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by redwolf, posted 07-15-2004 5:49 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022