0
   

Darwinism and the ordinary chicken

 
 
Reply Fri 29 Aug, 2008 07:29 pm
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.
 
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Fri 29 Aug, 2008 08:50 pm
@gungasnake,
A little knowledge truly is a dangerous thing.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Aug, 2008 09:15 pm
@JTT,
>A little knowledge truly is a dangerous thing.

That's as close as you can come to debating the case I make above??

I mean, there IS the option of remaining silent when you're basically clueless on a given topic...
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Aug, 2008 09:20 pm
I wonder is the chicken is related to the now extinct dodo bird.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Fri 29 Aug, 2008 09:25 pm
@gungasnake,
Quote:
That's the basic story of Evolutionism: the theory and what one finds in the real world never match up.


But the bible does, right?
Intrepid
 
  2  
Reply Fri 29 Aug, 2008 09:29 pm
@JTT,
The bible doesn't have much to say about chickens.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2008 09:32 am
@Intrepid,
Not in the OT. I'd assume that chickens arose in the far east and only made their way to the middle east by NT times.
rosborne979
 
  3  
Reply Sun 31 Aug, 2008 03:52 pm
@gungasnake,
Quote:
I'd assume that chickens arose in the far east and only made their way to the middle east by NT times.

Arose? Like in Evolved?

Or do you think chickens grew out of the ground like weeds, or were beamed onto the planet surface by super advanced "chicken planting" aliens?

Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Aug, 2008 06:32 pm
@rosborne979,
That's a long time to cross the road
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  2  
Reply Sun 31 Aug, 2008 08:13 pm
@rosborne979,
They were BRED, starting from a much smaller jungle fowl. Same way daschunds and rotweilers were bred from the ordinary 45-lb universal wild dog.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Aug, 2008 09:21 pm
@gungasnake,
Quote:
They were BRED, starting from a much smaller jungle fowl. Same way daschunds and rotweilers were bred from the ordinary 45-lb universal wild dog.

Is that the best you can do, I expected something far more outlandish from you Smile

0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Sep, 2008 05:50 pm
As usualo gungas posts show his incredible ignorance of the subject. Guess how many chapters Darwin used to discuss "artificial selection", as well, noone of any merit has stated that chickens derived from velociraptors, and artificially selected geese cannot fly either, same for turkeys and peafowl.
A preposterous proposition should be ign ored , not fed.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2009 12:42 pm
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:
Ever wonder why chickens don't fly any better than they do?

No. Because chickens were never selected for increased wing size. If anything, they were selected against increased wing size. No mystery there.

Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2009 12:47 pm
@rosborne979,
Ooo Ooo . . . that is so cool ! ! !

I vote super advanced chicken planting aliens ! ! !
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2009 12:51 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
I vote super advanced chicken planting aliens ! ! !

If Gunga is smart he'll go for that too, since *Magic* and *sufficiently advanced technology* is the only [chicken] leg he's got to stand on, outside of simple evolution.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2009 12:53 pm
Ah yes . . . the science of any sufficiently advanced civilization . . . etc., etc.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2009 07:14 pm
@rosborne979,
Quote:

No. Because chickens were never selected for increased wing size. If anything, they were selected against increased wing size. No mystery there....



Does being an idiot hurt really, really bad???
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2009 07:23 pm
For the benefit of anybody who might have come in late on evolution and birds...

You could start with the original post on this thread.

A flying bird requires a baker's dozen complex systems which you don't find in other animals: flight feathers with their complex structure, wings, super efficient hearts and lungs, beaks (since they don't have hands to feed themselves with), ultra-light bones, special kinds of tails for controlling flight, specialized balance parameters etc. etc.

For a non-flying creature to simple hatch an egg with all of that at one stroke would be an ultimate probabilistic miracle, totally impossible.

Evolutionites therefore claim that each such feature arose via mutation and somehow stuck around until all such features had thus arisen via mutation despite the fact that any one such feature in the absence of all the others, would be a defect so great as to doom the creatures with the 1/13'th of the way to being a bird mutation involved.

What real life tells us is just the opposite: that a bird such as the chicken with wings just slightly too small to allow it to fly other than tiny distances, cannot even evolve its way into being able to fly more than the tiny distances. I.E. in real life if you lack the tiniest bit of such a capability, your descendants will go on lacking it for all time until kingdom come or they go extinct.




rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2009 08:33 pm
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

Does being an idiot hurt really, really bad???

I wouldn't know.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2009 10:10 pm
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

For the benefit of anybody who might have come in late on evolution and birds...

You could start with the original post on this thread.

A flying bird requires a baker's dozen complex systems which you don't find in other animals: flight feathers with their complex structure, wings, super efficient hearts and lungs, beaks (since they don't have hands to feed themselves with), ultra-light bones, special kinds of tails for controlling flight, specialized balance parameters etc. etc.

For a non-flying creature to simple hatch an egg with all of that at one stroke would be an ultimate probabilistic miracle, totally impossible.

Unless of course, structures can have multiple functions, and oops what a coincidence... THEY DO.

Feathers can be used to fly, but they can also be used to keep you warm, and to produce colorful displays, and to protect you from rain.

Fins can help you swim, but they can also help you crawl along the ocean floor, or on rocks, or onto land (mudskippers).

Irreducible Complexity makes the same error that Gunga makes above when it assumes that all morphology has a linear developmental track and no flexibility to function. In short, it's an invalid assumption resulting in an incorrect conclusion.

 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Darwinism and the ordinary chicken
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/23/2019 at 06:26:03