Darwinism and the ordinary chicken

Ever wonder why chickens don't fly any better than they do? I mean, it isn't size; geese are as large as chickens and fly perfectly well. What it really is, is that the chicken started out life as some little one pound jungle fowl, and then was bred into a six or seven pound domestic bird, but he still has the 1-lb bird's wings.

Thus chickens can flitter-flap and hop up into trees and fly short distances, but that's about all of it.

Here's the problem: evolutionites claim that all living forms are in states of flux at all times, with advantages being conferred here and there by the rare but supposedly not nonexistent "beneficial mutation" and the progeny of such beneficiaries generally spreading out and taking over, in a repeating cycle.

In the case of chickens, you have a creature which has been raised in billions for all of history and which until recently has lived halfway in the wild and was generally not even fenced much less caged as they are now. All this creature ever needed was the tiniest bit of whatever Darwin was selling to make his wings a bit bigger...

But what we observe in real life is more like the business of cutting hair, in which cutting it off is fairly easy but putting it back on again is impossible. In real life, if you ever lose the tiniest bit of some complex capability either through breeding or via mutation, it is gone forever. Neither you nor any of your descendants will ever see it again.

Moreover, what then is one to think of the Darwinist claim that flying birds evolved from velocitaptors which had none of the complex organs needed to be a flying bird nor any of the instincts, when we see that the chicken cannot even evolve slightly bigger wings? Again, the chicken has been working from a base of billions while the supposed subfamily of raptors or coelurosaurs or whatever would have been working from a minuscule numeric base.

That's the basic story of Evolutionism: the theory and what one finds in the real world never match up.