You (all you, I guess, if that’s an ad hominem) have provided zero new biological evidence, just your interpretation of existing evidence. If you have provided new biological evidence, we have yet to see it.
1 Like
It is your premise that evolution is false, and that’s false, so guess what that does to your conclusion. (I used to be a YEC and I used to endorse ID, so you are not telling me anything I have not been aware of.)
Your cognitive dissonance is unavoidable, because you put YEC interpretation of science above the Bible. You’ve decided that the Bible says something it doesn’t, call that ‘science’ and subjugate the cosmos to it. The cosmos is God’s creation too, and he reveals truth in it that all can see.
Maybe someday you’ll see the irony in that.
2 Likes
Predicting the future to that extent is impossible, therefore “I don’t know” is the only possible short answer. Given what it seems to have taken in some other groups (Cetacea, Pseudosuchia, Plesiosauria, etc.), if it were to ever take place, maybe 20 million years at a minimum.
I claim that the evidence we have indicates that it did happen, If it has happened, it must be possible.
It is not outrageous, but is non-scientific, as there is no possible evidence that would refute it.
3 Likes
In some cases, the impressions of melanins from the feathers have survived, and informed guesses about coloration can be put forward based on comparison with modern birds: like Microraptor as an iridescent black or Sinornithisaurus as a mixture of earth tones.
3 Likes
Tree climbing to gliding to short-distance powered flight seems like an obvious intermediate option. And light bones and flight-enabling musculature would be useful in those intermediate stages in addition to the final one. Feathers can be used for display or insulation (like in peafowl or loons, respectively) in addition to just flying.
3 Likes
Why do you feel it necessary to attribute beliefs that scientists do not hold? Evolution is not some king above natural law. It is inevitable, not impossible. it is biology over time. Evolution is as much about constraint as it is about adaptation. That is why the nested hierarchy reflects the history of life. That is why tetrapods such as birds and bats have to do without arms to gain wings.
1 Like
@Paraleptopecten
Do you really want to go there?
Forgive the facetious overtones but I do not know if there is enough space here to even scratch the surface. I am at work now. I will try and formulate some sort of response this evening.
Richard
To justify much of what I am about to write please see the following link (One of many options
Biomechanics of Bird Flight
There is a reason why man has never been able to reproduce avian flight. It is not just a case of flapping wings. There are supplementary motions both in terms of the whole wing and the individual feathers. It is so fine-tuned that you only have to remove a couple of flight feathers and the bird cannot fly. The dynamics change according to wing shape and size and the relative proportions of wing to body. Nature is supposed to have stumbled upon this motion accidentally, having assembled all the key elements for flight without any preconception for flight.
These elements are
- wings
- A n aerodynamicTail
- feathers
- honeycomb bones
- A strong sternum for attaching wing muscles
- Correct muscles (and appropriate sinews)
- Nerves and controls for the muscles
- A high metabolic rate
- Lung system capable of standing high intake during flight
To be honest, the idea of feathers being a sort of flag is pushiing the boat out but I am trying to avoid too much incredulity.
There is no other example of honeycomb bones.
The sternum is only required for wing power.
I will link for a detailed explanation of how a bird breathes How a bird breathes
Now compare this with How a reptile breathes
They are completely incompatible
Climbing with wings? Have you any idea what muscles are used for climbing, the balance and anchor points? And why climb in the first place? So they can jump off a branch? What is the purpose? Escaping predators? (Maybe thrill seeking) How does it aid the primary function of finding food?
Ecologically, there is no void for birds to fill. Reptiles have/had a perfectly elegant and efficient flyer in the Pterodactyl.
Without a designer, Evolution cannot plan. It cannot pre-empt, It cannot build. Most of the developments recorded are reactionary. Caused by changes in the environment or pressures on the food chain and so on. There is no reason for the development of flight let alone the development of each of the elements described above.
And finally. The average size of a bird is minuscule compared to the creatures that so say preceded them. Such a concerted effort to reduce size has no meaning in terms of random deviations be they genetic or otherwise.
I am sorry, but there is too much (macro) evidence to suggest that Birds could not have derived from reptiles. DNA be damned!
Richard
You assume that you need to have a preconception for flight. Where is the evidence for this claim?
You might find this paper interesting:
You don’t need a void for species to survive and thrive.
Where is the evidence that there is no reason for developing flight?
Did you ever think of googling “small dinosaurs”?
https://www.google.com/search?q=small+dinsoarus
“Like present-day birds, dinosaurs had hollow bones with inner structures known as air sacs, which made their skeletons lighter and less dense.”
You haven’t presented any evidence, only empty claims.
7 Likes
And incredulity.
Now look at bothe the one with feathers and Achaeopterix (et al)
You re arguing not answering.
Your picture is almost amusing. You know how Zoos clip(ped) the wings of captive birds?
I said you would not “see” you have proved it.
I am not going to waste any more time with this.
Richard
You claimed that if you remove 2 flight feathers the bird can’t fly. I showed you a bird missing way more than 2 flight feathers, and it was flying.
Apparently, you don’t understand the difference between evidence and claims. Proclaiming “it can’t evolve” is not evidence that something can’t evolve. Proclaiming that evolution has to pre-conceive flight in order to evolve flight is not evidence that evolution has to pre-conceive flight. A search algorithm that chooses changes that improve flight, and therefore fitness, doesn’t need to pre-conceive flight.
4 Likes
It would appear that you cannot see evidence if it is shown to you. regardless of any conclusions I may draw.
Richard
What specifically do you think is evidence, and why?
Added in edit:
Food for thought:
In this example, they had a simple evolutionary algorithm. They made random changes to a circuit, and then kept changes that improved output amplitude and frequency. Nowhere in the algorithm was there a design for a radio, nor any preconception of a radio within the algorithm. And yet, it made a radio.
3 Likes
Birds are much smaller, on average, than pterosaurs, thus they would have an easier time flying through dense forest. They also function better in cold climates. Also, we don’t know details of conditions, so making any precise assertion about what ecological niches were available is impossible.
Climbing would promote strong shoulder muscles, light weight, and small body size. Then from there, having some ability to steer an accidental fall would be handy, thus one might get some weak gliding ability for that. Weak gliding ability could also help with jumping from one tree to another.
Angiosperms are common as trees. They have fruit. Fruit is edible.
Is another obvious benefit.
Microraptor is not particularly large, and it is not the smallest dromaeosaur known.
How about dwarf elephants: Palaeoloxodon includes both the largest-known species of elephant (6 meters at the shoulder and about 20,000 kg) and ones on Mediterranean islands that were 90 cm at the shoulder and about 200 kg.
4 Likes
Good points, @Paraleptopecten . And here is an actual living (modern) bird , the Hoatzin, which has claws on its wings and climbs around in the vegetation as a juvenile.
6 Likes
You cannot give a target to anything or process that does not have intelligence. The setting of that target is depicting an outcome that is beyond the scope of pure Evolution. There can be no intelligence or purpose assigned to a process that is described as using random deviation or sequencing.
If you do, you are giving a place for an outside influence: God.
Evolutionary theory falls the moment you try and personify it, give it intelligence, or preconception. As soon as you claim that the changes have a target you have defeated the basis of Evolutionary change.
Richard
Whether a winged creature could climb or not is not science, it is speculation and opinion, An artist;s impression is not evidence.
The interpretation of fossils is subject to opinion and personal bias.
The interpretation of DNA patterns is subject to personal opinion and bias
The existence of ID is basically philosophy and not science
To a greater or lesser extent, the scope of Evolution is philosophy and not pure science.
Physiology and the bio-mechanics involved is science. Aerodynamics and the mechanics of flight is science
Comparing the physiologies of reptiles and Birds is science. (Comparing DNA is science) The abilities or progressions from one to the other is not science unless you can prove the existence of every single step. That is creatures who display one or more of the characteristics in question. The same applies to theories about heredity.you cannot prove them beyond theory
I have shown you the complexities of the ability of birds to fly. They are facts. If you believe that they can be built up slowly, that is speculation or opinion, it is not science. I have shown you the difference between the breathing system of a bird and a reptile. They are facts. Whether you can use evolution to change from one to the other is opinion not fact. It cannot be proven. The existence of the two systems does not prove that they are related. Claiming that it must have happened is not science.
Your accusation about claims applies as much to you as it does to me.
The only difference is that you seem to believe that it is up to me to disprove you. Why?
Richard
.