3
   

Bird breathing anatomy breaks dino-to-bird dogma

 
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Jun, 2009 06:16 am
@gungasnake,
With the world so chock full of animal species that have obviously been modified from related species, and highre taxa that reflect common ancestry, the belief in an immutability of species is almost and affront to ones innate intelligence. Fundamentalist religions (All stripes) seem to want to squash creativity and investigation in order to maintain order among the group)

SAD really.
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Jun, 2009 07:50 am
@farmerman,
gungasnake doesn't know or care whether evolution happened or not; he just likes trolling the forum.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Jun, 2009 08:06 am
Evolution can get you to another similar creature: from an ass to a horse; from a sheep to a goat; a dog to a wolf; one kind of songbird to another...

But every expert who's ever studied the thing has noted that nothing more is possible. Evolution can't get you from a goat to a wolf, from something which lives on land to something which lives in deep water, from something which can't fly to something which can...

contrex
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Jun, 2009 08:21 am
@gungasnake,
That's rubbish, gungasnake. Utter idiotic rubbish. You are a damn fool.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Jun, 2009 08:38 am
@contrex,
contrex wrote:

gungasnake doesn't know or care whether evolution happened
or not; he just likes trolling the forum.


That 's not true.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Jun, 2009 09:18 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Sure it is.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Jun, 2009 06:52 pm
@Setanta,
naah. He trolls for souls.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2009 09:00 pm
I figured that, as soon as gunga get backed up with simple facts and ridicule he tucks his head in and slithers away like the cowardly snake he is.
He has NEVER had a single fact correct in his sevral years of tub thumping for his Myths.

See any stegoaurs in the great lakes lately?

rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Jun, 2009 06:14 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
See any stegoaurs in the great lakes lately?

Don't be silly, stegosaurs can't swim. Those were giant horned aliens from Qinath on a family outing to manipulate the genes of primates so that humans could arise. Obviously.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jun, 2009 01:19 am
@farmerman,

Professor Farmer:
I rise to a point of information, to wit:
if the melting of frozen submarine methane hydrate
contributed to the Permian extinction
by befouling the air, then where has that methane gone ?
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jun, 2009 03:04 am
bullshit gunga. Whales live in deep water. They evolved from land animals. The genetics shows the relationship. The fossil record demonstrates the intermediates.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jun, 2009 03:09 am
re David: methane in the atmosphere oxidizes to CO2 and water. Its half-life in the atmosphere is on the order of seven years. The stuff from millions of years ago is long gone.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jun, 2009 03:15 am
For the benefit of anybody who might have missed it:

Quote:

There are two gigantic problems for evolutionites such as our Farmerman here involving birds, which you never see in print.

The first such problem arises from probability theory and combinatorics. Suppose for a moment that you aren't a flying bird, but that you wish to become one: You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, the complex system for turning flight feathers open on upstrokes and closed on downstrokes, a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through lungs and super efficient heart, specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc.

For starters, every one of these things would be anti-functional until the day on which the whole thing came together, so that the chances of evolving any of these things by any process resembling evolution (mutations plus selection) would amount to an infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some gigantic number.

In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says that the likelihood of all these things ever happening, best case, is ten or twelve such infinitesimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth or twelth-order infinitesimal. The whole history of the universe isn't long enough for that to happen once.

All of that was the best case. In real life, it's even worse than that. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori. In real life, all you'd ever get would some sort of a random walk around some starting point, rather than the unidirectional march towards a future requirement which evolution requires.

And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first, having been disfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial.

A velociraptor could of course simply hatch as a bird with all of the new features required at a stroke, but that would still just be a probabilistic miracle and the same miracle would have to occur twice on the same day, one male, the other female...

The other giant problem arises from a study of chickens. You have noticed that chickens have some sort of very limited flight capability but could not generally be called flying birds. That is because they originated as some sort of a little 1 pound or 1.5 pound jungle fowl and then were bred into a six or eight pound domestic animal, but still have the one pound bird's wings. Geese are as large and heavy as chickens and fly perfectly well because they were created with the wings needed by a bird of their size.

Again, a flying bird needs a dozen or so highly specialized biological systems, the lack of any one of which will cause the whole idea not to work. He needs wings, flight feathers, highly specialized and efficient hearts and lungs which are unlike those of anything else, a highly specialized kind of tail and general balance parameters, etc.

Now, a velociraptor has none of those things, yet the evolution crowd claims that a type of velociraptor, given enough time, basically turned into today's flying birds. Is that possible? The velociraptor-bird wannabe would be working from a miniscule numeric base, and would require numerous probabilistic miracles, along with some government agency like AFDC to feed him during the thousands of generations while he was carrying the incomplete wings and flight feathers and what not around as liabilities rather than assets. Again, they only BECOME assets on the day that the whole deal works.

Consider the kiwi, the auk, the ostrich, the emu, the penguin, and the whole host of flightless birds on the earth not only now, but during the last 50,000 years or so. At least some of these guys have some vestige of the things which the velociraptor would need to become a bird; if the velociraptor's trip to flying-birdhood is viewed as 1000 miles, the kiwi and what not need travel less than a mile.

According to evolutionist doctrine, somewhere within recorded history, some kiwi or emu or other such should have started to fly again, and we should occasionally look overhead and see them. At the very least, the fossil record should show such a thing. It doesn't.

The question: If the kiwi can't make it the last mile, given some sort of a start on all of the necessary organs and biological systems needed to become a flying bird, then how is the velociraptor going to make his 1000-mile journey?

Better yet, man has raised chickens all over the world throughout recorded history, and only for the last 50 years or so in cages. Chickens even have some minimalistic ability to fly, and the numeric base they've had to work from is immense. The numbers of escaped chickens over the last 5000 years or so must be in the billions. If the kiwi has less than a mile to travel to become a flying bird, then the feral chicken has less than a foot. According to all logic, given evolutionist dogma, some group of escaped chickens should have fully regained flight over the last 5000 years, and we should see them up overhead.

The reality is that once you lose any part of a complex trait, it's gone forever, and neither the Easter rabbit nor the Evolution fairy has any power to get it back for you. If you lack some complex trait altogether, such as the case of the velociraptor wishing to become a bird, your only hope will be God, Dr. Moreau, or somebody else with a fairly good idea of what he is about, and a bit of intelligent genetic re-engineering. Mutations and "natural selection" don't cut it in the real world.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jun, 2009 03:15 am
"Farmerman"?? **** him and **** the pig he rode in on.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jun, 2009 03:32 am
gunga, your argument as in the cut-and-paste above, has already failed by the second paragraph. Feathers, light bones, flow-through lungs and the combination working with the heart already exist in dinosaurs and have nothing to do with flight, but rather things like heat retention, or reduced mass for increased speed in predation. As evolution does, they get repurposed in birds when flight comes along. You can also have intermediates which are fliers but not superb fliers. Even flight which is mostly gliding confers advantages. Additional mutations over millions of years produce better fliers, but it is flatly wrong to think you need everything at once before you've got anything.,

Flight evolved independently at least four times. Insect flight is nothing like bat flight is a different set of mechanisms than bird flight. And there were early four-winged birds. Recent research in bats shows that wing structure isn't all that hard to produce. One simple change in a regulatory gene, a gene that tells another gene or complex of genes when to start producing something and when to stop, has shown that if that gene, which controls the growth of finger-like structures on possible ancestors of bats stays active longer, you get something that is not a paw but a winglike structure with a long "finger" joined by webbing to others. That's just one mutation of pre-esisting stuctures in an ancestral form, and you've got the start of flight. Not as hard a process as your author, who knows nothing of biological probability, maintains.

gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jun, 2009 03:53 am
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
Feathers, light bones...


I said, FLIGHT feathers. See if you can look up the difference between flight feathers and anything any dinosaur might have had for insulation.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jun, 2009 04:31 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:

re David: methane in the atmosphere oxidizes to CO2 and water.
Its half-life in the atmosphere is on the order of seven years.
The stuff from millions of years ago is long gone.

Thank u, Jack.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jun, 2009 06:09 am
@gungasnake,
If all youre going to do is regurgitate your original ****, Ill jut repost what I said after your post. Nothing extensive but it provides the core ridculousness of your argument and intelligent readers acn easily find resources to supplement this information to a much greater extent

Quote:
Re: gungasnake (Post 3681378)
Quote:
In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says that the likelihood of all these things ever happening, best case, is ten or twelve such infinitesimals multiplied together---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Probability has nothing to do with anything. Adaptation and drift are non probabalistic responses to internal structures and external morphology. The HOX gene is present in ALL organisms. What the evolutionary response has been from archosaurs (or theropods) to birds is a simple turn off and on of HOS=X structures by DNA that now resides within the "junk" sections of the organisms genome. None of the effective DNA ever disappears, it merely gets hung in the "genomic closet" as a fossil of an organisms makeup. I understand how the Creationists SO DERLY WANT to make it sound like theres an infinetessimal chance of any ocurences , but, once an organism had HOX, the multiplication of its format is simple and inevitable(dependent uypon the environmental stresses and opportunities)

Quote:
All of that was the best case. In real life, it's even worse than that. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori. In real life, all you'd ever get would some sort of a random walk around some starting point, rather than the unidirectional march towards a future requirement which evolution requires.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thats just total eyewash. The celebrated Archeopteryx fossils (of which we have over 200 in the worlds collections now), show the intermediate structures that sre "caught" between reptile and bird. Most ALl of these intermediary structures have been experimentally jiggered with in genetic experiments. For example, a beak with teeth has been shown to be simply derived by just turning on the respective "transposable element" in the area of the genome that accrues to the cephalon of an organism. Once the controlling DNA, as it exists in the very earliets common ancestor is first manifest, IT NEVER GOES AWAY, so your entire point is garbage.

Quote:
According to evolutionist doctrine, somewhere within recorded history, some kiwi or emu or other such should have started to fly again, and we should occasionally look overhead and see them. At the very least, the fossil record should show such a thing. It doesn't-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You are insane. Your logic doesnt even pass a basic laugh test. "Evolutionist doctrine" (whatever the hell that is ) says noting about birds doing anything but adapting to their environment or becoming extinct. The ratites clan is highly adapted to a land locked life . The ancestors of these birds (large flightless birds)seemed to be all over the drifting continental landmasses so that the ratites of today now look like theyve diverged from at least two rootstocks. ALL OF WHICH IS IN THE FOSSIL RECORD AND IN THEIR GENES. The process of evolution is pretty much unidirectional with some diversions in specific manifestations. For example, both marsupials and placentals have evolved "sabertoothed" species.
PS , your examples of domestic geese and chickens are about as robust and argument as a sugar cube in a cup of coffee. Domestic geese dont fly. THeyve been domesticated , like chickens, by artificial selection to be big reatsed and meatiwer. Thus the Long Island, Pekin Runners, and SCobies dont fly ata all. Several groups of chickens (like bantams) CAN fly . They are all of the same family as pheasants who, as we know, are powerful short distance flyers that rely upon gliding after a radical power styroke.

Chickens are best adated for land feeding and they only fly to perch or get away from danger. Even big fat Wyandotte hens (like I own) can fly quite well. Your analogies just done even hold water. A bird thats adapted for one way of life doesnt "REadapt to another by just leaving it alone" Thats ridiculous and you know it.
However, whats even more ridiculous is the existence of all these species , so adapted to specific tight niches in the planet, you would have these "Created Separately"? Now whos sounding idiotic.


Archeopteryx has been challenged by Creationists as a "bird" or as a "lizard" somehow you Creationists should make up your mind and stick with it because you are sounding like youre beginning to become an "evolutionist"
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 05:58 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
If all youre going to do is regurgitate your original ****, Ill jut repost what I said after your post.

Yeh, I thought about reposting my comment as well. What the heck...

rosborne979 wrote:

gungasnake wrote:
There are two gigantic problems for evolutionites such as our Farmerman here involving birds, which you never see in print.

The first such problem arises from probability theory and combinatorics.
rosborne979 wrote:

These probability arguments are all predicated on the [false] assumption that flight was the original goal from the start, and it wasn't (evolution doesn't work that way, which you *should* know, but you obviously don't). So the presumption above is simply false, as we've demonstrated many times in the past.

The rest of your post is just a cut/paste which is a derivation of the original false assumption, so it's a waste of time.

Have a nice snakey day Smile

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/17/2019 at 11:43:28