0
   

Darwinism and the ordinary chicken

 
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jan, 2009 06:55 am
@gungasnake,
Your plea for the advancement of idiocy as real science is getting worrisome. Gunga, chickens are part of a series of over 75 genera of "pheasant like" birds called GALINACEOUS birds. Their evolutionary trail in both the genetic codes and the fossil record is one of the strongest in science (I suppose that you were unaware of that ). The galliform birds were so named because of their strong leg bones and specific style of humerus (easily tracked in the fossil record ). These birds appeared in the mid Ctretaceous and have diversified by bing rafted on derifting continental plates. The earliest spcimens come from one of my own project areas in ARgentina(Sierra de Portezuelo). The gallinaceous birds ARE ALL POOR FLIERS to begin with. Their flying is done in short bursts for escape or for roosting. (Think wild turkeys, quail,junglefowl, etc).
Im actually smiling that youd open your discussion of incredulity with a species that is documented so well. You should have stuck to bats where the fossil record is enigmatic.
Now that youre armed with some new information, why not run to AIG and plunk in "Gallinaceous Birds" and see what the good reverend has to say.

The selective breeding and artificial selection of junglefowl has resulted in THE CHICKEN. The ability to conduct only limited flight was already a feature of the GAllinaceous birds because theyve adapted well to a life of the forest and jungle floors. They adopted running over flight and were begiining to become larger in the fossil record because so little of the bauplan was then devoted to long distance flight needs. Birds of these genera have strong coracoids and humerii and extended head vertebra for balance. The body plans are quite similar and the genetic codes of living birds show the "fossil genes" of the ancestors that occupied lands that were split off from each other by continental drift that occured since when?(The Cretaceous).

Youre arguments on this one couldnt be more amusing


Quote:
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.

I have no idea what youre even getting at here. First off, dont incorrectly state what real science "believes" when you cant even get it right.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jan, 2009 07:04 am
@rosborne979,
Also, the genetic record of gallinaceous birds is quite complete and maps out the journey of these birds through geologic time and changing environments.

Several Darwin Day exhibits (starting in Feb) will have a section on natural and artificial selection and the animal that everyone agreed was most representative of how evolution AND selective breeding can affect a life form was (you guessed it) THE CHICKEN!!. How bout that
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jan, 2009 09:09 am
@farmerman,
Quote:

The selective breeding and artificial selection of junglefowl has resulted in THE CHICKEN. The ability to conduct only limited flight was already a feature of the GAllinaceous birds because theyve adapted well to a life of the forest and jungle floors....


Which is all pretty irrelevant.

Those birds are STILL vastly closer to being flying birds than the original bird wannabe coelurosaur which YOU and your ilk claim evolved into all present flying birds, and any excuse you care to make up to explain why "GAllinaceous" birds should not be able to evolve into birds with good flight capabilities will go quadruple or quintuple for the coelurosaur wannabe, won't it?

In our present world and for all of recorded history, chickens have lived all over the world, have escaped and lived in the wild all over the world, and being able to fly more than about a hundred feet would be a gigantic advantage to them and the doctrine of evolutionism DEMANDS that such a microscopic differential be within the reach of the selection/mutation nexus you keep waving around. If it ISN'T, then there is no way in hell a coelurosaur could evolve into a flying bird, and evolution is basically just a bunch of BULLSHIT, isn't it?

http://img84.exs.cx/img84/7594/bullshit6gf.jpg


Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Wed 7 Jan, 2009 09:23 am
The operative term here is invincible ignorance.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jan, 2009 09:38 am
Quote:
Which is all pretty irrelevant


Why do I get a feeling that Im teaching a parakeet to play a violin?

The evolution of a family of animals does take some training andskill to interpret, not to mention an ability to dismiss the myths of childhood.Archeopteryx was a a bird with almost 25 distinct reptilian features that remain in the fossil. Weve done the clade analyses from over 35 specimens worldwide (with more coming from the areas of Liaoning) Several specimens are complete molds and casts of the brain cases that (proportionately) lie right in the middle of the reptilian/Aves brain structure.

The evolutionary development of the Aves from reptiles is easily seen (if you ever take time to do the comparisons). The evolution of the Archeornithes (Jurassic early irds) into the 33 orders of NEornithes (post Jurassic"modern" birds) can be seen in the fossil record and in genetic makeup.

Weve gone over this so many times . Im sure I dont have to remind you gunga. Your outlook and worldview, while consistent, is based on nothing but silly AIG propositions and a lack of evidence. HArdly a scientific inquiry.

World is OLD, very old.

Things evolved

Theres plenty of evidence to support me.

Deal with it more intelligently from here on.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jan, 2009 09:58 am
@gungasnake,
Quote:
Those birds are STILL vastly closer to being flying birds than the original bird wannabe coelurosaur which YOU and your ilk claim evolved into all present flying birds,


How many times have we told you to try to stop talking like you understand what you are saying. Where did you get this crap anyway? Im sure the source is interesting when someone presumes to tell someone what he understands the evidence to be. The dinosaur of which you speak is only used in Science Fiction stories (Im sorry I didnt catch it but there are so many dinosaurs and so little accuacy in nomenclaturs). I hadda look im up in my "treatise on Vertebrate Paleontology" a worthy set of texts on anything "saurian" and megafaunal.
SO the treatise says that the name was in correctly coined to try to group all the over 15 documented fossil suborders of feathered dinosaurs into one major grouping. The name was then picked up and used in scie fi movies like "brontosaurus" so, If youre trying to make a point and discuss something from a position of knowledge , please try to gain the knowledge first, then dispute it.


15 suborders of these critters, several, were Triassic protoaves in structure "bird like lizards "that, later in the Jurassic lest fossils of "lizard like birds".
You can deny the evidence all you want but I remind everyone else that gungas position withers under the cold drawers full of evidence. His position that science is all crap needs to be evidence free so that he can make those statements. As his position gradually dimishes in credibility,he becomes further strident and irrational in his argument methods.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jan, 2009 10:46 am
The genetic similarities between Galliformes, the landfowl, which Farmerman already discussed, and Anseriformes, the waterfowl, which are fine fliers, indicates a common evolutionary ancestor. Together they form the clade Galloanserae.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jan, 2009 11:13 am
Whenever there is a discussion of birds, i always eventually think of New Zealand. It would have been fantastic to have been able to visit there before mammals arrived.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jan, 2009 11:38 am
@Setanta,
A favorite snack of the MAuris was to put a slab of chocolate and a piece of giant flightless bird in between two graham crackers. They called them s'moa's
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jan, 2009 11:44 am
That reeeeaaaaallllllyyyyyy sucked FM . . . i congratulate you . . .
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jan, 2009 11:54 am
@Setanta,
I strive for suck sess.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jan, 2009 12:28 pm
@InfraBlue,
Speaking of taxonomy...
http://able2know.org/topic/127585-1
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/26/2019 at 10:10:32