Birds

The most dangerous bird...I think these probably
evolved(oops!)into eagles



http://www.marshalls-art.com/images/ipaleo/paleopg10/Titanus1.jpg

link

link

link

link

link

link

 

I'm curious as to how many mutations you think it would have taken to get a dinosaur to turn into a bird, UTE.

 

Ute, did the sources specifically include T-REX within the catagory of dinosaurs with hollow bones that participate in the oxygination of the blood? 'cause that might explain that small chest which seemingly wouldn't support an adequate lungful of air for such a mighty beast . . .

 

The article says that ventilation in avian lungs goes both ways. In fact, it goes only one way, unlike the usual "both ways" breathing in most other vertebrates.

The avian lung is like a single alveolus, and the respiratory path is like the collateral ventilation that occurs in other vertbrates when bronchioles are blocked. It is much more efficient than the usual way.

 

Very good link. I was shown some time ago, that the scutes, but not other scales, can be induced to form feathers by genetic manipulations.

Scutes were present in dinosaurs, but apparently not in therapsids.

Which would explain why mammals don't have feathers, even if some of them have scales.

 

Again, how many mutations did it take to get from dinosaur to bird, please?

 

How many hairs did St. Paul have on his head, please?

You don't know? Well, that must mean St. Paul didn't exist.

We can't hide God in the gaps of our knowledge. We can only say that the evidence in our possession at this time overwhelmingly says that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

Could that change? Sure. But until it does, science will go with the evidence we have.

So far, it's been a very reliable system.

 

My point, UTE, is that there is no way mutations, which DELETE function could produce a bird from a dinosaur.

How many? First, you have to go downhill from the dinosaur to get to the bird, since expressed mutations result in lost function. But the question of how many mutations has nothing to do with the number of hairs on anyone's head. That's a Galation idiocy.

Evolution says that a series of mutations would have resulted in the changes from dinosaur to bird. So how many mutations? What did they do? What evidence do we have that mutations can do this?

These are extraordinarily relevant questions which are totally ignored by evolution apologists.

 

Where is the scientific evidence for the claim that genetic mutation ONLY results in a deletion of functions? In fact, a "mutation" is any change in the DNA that changes the function of the gene. Fruit flies that have over time been exposed to acidic conditions have developed genetic mutations that give them the ability to live in the new conditions, to the point where their unchanged ancestors cannot live in those same conditions.

What about the fact that dinosaurs and humans don't appear in the fossil record at the same time? They appear at different times. And that's not even addressing the evolution/creation issue. Yet the YEC crowd insist, without evidence, that these two creations existed at the same time, even though their claim is not supported by the fossil record.

[ July 26, 2005, 01:33 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

Dinosaurs and humans do not appear in the same places. They required absolutely different living conditions. But the fact is they did live at the same time as multiple evidences show, including the Chinese records, Egyptian references, etc. Carvings and drawings in Australia, on Roman and Greek pottery and friezes and such also bear quiet testimony.

John, mutations do delete function. That is sometimes helpful to various species, but it does not change the fact that function itself is deleted on genetic/cellular level.

Evolutionary change requires mutations that increase enzyme specificity, create regulatory proteins, transport systems, etc. Examples of these types of mutations are what evolutionists have totally failed to produce. So, for example, an enzyme's ability to degrade nylon is simply the result of a reduction of specificity for that enzyme, enabling it to use a substrate it previously could not use. This could be considered beneficial if there is an advantage for the organism to degrade nylon. But, this, in no way, provides a genetic explanation of how that enzyme's original specificity was formed. Yet evolution claims to account for exactly that, a mechanism of how enzyme specificity originated, not how it became less. Evolution must start at bottom of Dawkins' Mount Improbable, not at the top.

 

That's not correct. Humans and dinosaurs do appear in some of the same palces, just not at the same time in the fossil record.

That's completely incorrect. Most dinosaurs were the size of humans or smaller, and the conditions they lived in were often similar to present day conditions. Most dinosaurs lived in temparate conifer forests, savannahs, etc, similar to the conditions that humans enjoy.

None of those depict dinosaurs. If that were true, then fossils found in those regions would resemble the drawings. Also, dinosuar fossils found in those regions would date to date range as human remains.

It does? It seems to me that every time a new discovery is found, the YEC'ers raise the bar. Why is that?

And if they can, what will the YEC retort be? Just curious as to what the new bar will be.

 

That's not 'raising the bar.' That is what mutations have to do for evolution to happen.

They don't do that.

 

Let's try it a different way, Helen. I gather we agree that we can know things happened, even if we don't know every detail.

So let's look at your question again...

So we need to know how many mutations did it take to get from the most birdlike dinosaur to the most dinosaur-like bird.

We may not know the exact transitionals, but we can come pretty close. So let's try.

There's some question about what exactly is the dividing line between the two. So the first thing we need to do is define them.

I'll take your list of characteristics that are found in all dinosaurs, but not in any birds, and the list of all characteristics found in birds, and not in any dinosaurs.

Then we can see how much mutation it would take to go from the most birdlike dinosaur known, to the most dinosaurlike bird we can find.

And that would at least give us an estimate that might be high, but certainly wouldn't be low.

Let's give it a try. Tell us what's on your lists.

 

Helen keeps asserting that mutation only causes loss of function, despite the evidence and despite challenges to prove her assertion.

How about the fact that microbes mutate to be resistant to certain antibiotics?

An unsubstantiated claim to protect a fossilized worldview does not make it so.

 

The mutation of bacteria to resist antibacterial agents involves a change in the folding of the protein where the original substrate is lost.

MP, what evidence do you have that any mutation causes a new function?

One other point about your microbes. Their mutations are hot spot mutations, going back and forth. So there is always some percentage of a colony or population with resistance to antibiotics. This has to be because they cannot mutate AFTER exposure which would kill them!

Galatian, get the breast bone turned upside down, establish feathers (which have NO relation to scales!), provide wings, muscles, and the blood supply necessary for them. Add the nerve extensions and instincts necessary. Don't forget the tendons and ligaments which must attach differently. Change the bones from heavy to light.

How many mutations? How many generations would all this take?

For those who are not aware, of every thousand expressed mutations there is MAYBE one that might be beneficial. However it is beneficial because, like the antibiotic-resistant microbes, it delets function.

So go ahead, Galation, start deleting functions with beneficial mutations at the rate of a thousand to one and get from a dinosaur to a flying bird before that place below freezes over.

 

Suggest you start a new thread with this one, UTE. This thread is for the birds...