[_ Old Earth _] Evolution from a Parrot - The key to understanding evolution

[InChrist]

Read up on this parrot:

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking ... -4355r.htm

Darwinism explains that through natural selection and mutation a monkey evolved into a man. This is because Darwin thought monkey's were the smartest animals on earth. He figured, we had to evolve from the highest form of animal life with the highest intelligence. Many scientists have come to the conclusion that communication is one of the greatest signs of a satient being. What I'm getting to is that monkeys aren't the smartest form of animal life according to this concept, neither are dolphins. Parrots are. This African parrot speaks the most amount of words of any animal alive (900). There have been other articles stating that he makes up words when he doesn't know something and has cynical jokes about things. He knows enough to speak the human language and communicate crudely. No monkey has been shown to amass such a verbal capability.

Why then didn't we evolve from parrots? I don't see that we have wings. Where are they? We don't even have feathers. This flys in the face of evolutionary concept. Parrots are extremely old birds. If evolution was right, their genes would have mutated into a satient form of life by now. Why hasn't it? They've probably been around as long as monkeys. Macroevolution must be wrong.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Darwinism explains that through natural selection and mutation a monkey evolved into a man. This is because Darwin thought monkey's were the smartest animals on earth.

Wrong and wrong. Darwin postulated that human beings evolved from apes due to their being intelligent animals with extremely similar features to our own.

He figured, we had to evolve from the highest form of animal life with the highest intelligence. Many scientists have come to the conclusion that communication is one of the greatest signs of a satient being.

Wrong and semi wrong. Darwin said that similar traits implies ancestral relationship. Communication is ONE of the signs of sapience, as is tool use and ability to think abstractly.

What I'm getting to is that monkeys aren't the smartest form of animal life according to this concept, neither are dolphins. Parrots are. This African parrot speaks the most amount of words of any animal alive (900).

So what, a chimp raised among humans can eventually say a few words after a while, not very well because it hasn't the vocal cords, but some words. It can also understand a great deal of human speech. Dolphins and chimps and others are much smarter than parrots because they have been shown some abstract thinking skills. This is simply a particularly smart parrot.
More importantly chimps, gorillas and dolphins all communicate with eachother in their own small scale basic languages.

There have been other articles stating that he makes up words when he doesn't know something and has cynical jokes about things. He knows enough to speak the human language and communicate crudely. No monkey has been shown to amass such a verbal capability.

Correct no monkey has been ever shown to have any verbal capacity. But apes do have huge amounts compared to most animals. Gorillas can be taught to use sign language.

Why then didn't we evolve from parrots? I don't see that we have wings.

Because we evolved from apes, who can use tools, who have thumbs and the ones we evolved from learned to stand up. You have not shown conclusively that parrots are as smart or smarter than apes or dolphins.

Where are they? We don't even have feathers. This flys in the face of evolutionary concept.

No it does not. You have not necessitated that humans had to have evolved from parrots. Most evidence shows that humans evolved from apes.

Parrots are extremely old birds. If evolution was right, their genes would have mutated into a satient form of life by now. Why hasn't it? They've probably been around as long as monkeys.

Well no numbers and you don't even know how old monkeys are as a phylum. Why would parrots have? Maybe 900 words is as far as their sapience has got so far or perhaps as far as it can get because of their inability to use tools. It doesn't matter how long they've been around, what matters is what they do to adapt to their environment. Parrots have evolved to have extremely complex birdsongs to the point where it is comprable to being a small human child in intelligence. But this neither makes them the smartest animal on earth nor the most sapient(aside from humans).

Macroevolution must be wrong.

You don't know anywhere near enough about evolution, the theory of evolution, natural selection, taxonomy, zoology, etc to say this with any authority at all. Your reasons here have shown that you don't actually know what you are talking about.

 

[Blue-Lightning]

This is a poor argument on so many levels. InChrist, let me be the guy on your side of the debate who lets you down easy before some of the more ferocious contributors come and maul this one to death.

1. ToE doesn't theorize that humans come from monkeys.
2. Even if they did, it wouldn't be on the basis of intelligence progression.
3. Darwin didn't base his ideas on animal intelligence.
4. Verbal capacity doesn't necessarily indicate overal intelligence.
5. Even if apes or monkeys did have higher verbal capacities, they lack the vocal abilities to indicate them directly.

Keep working' at it,

BL

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

who lets you down easy before some of the more ferocious contributors come and maul this one to death.

Too late
*bites InChrist

Well, my motto IS carpe jugulum.

 

[InChrist]

You have evidently not talked to Henry Gee from the British journal NATURE. He is one of the most well-known evolutionists. Darwin's theory is haphazard. Sentient life could have more easily evolved from a parrot. Why hasn't it? That's my point. There's probably been millions of years for the genes of the parrot species to mutate and form a higher form of life. Yet, I don't see one today. On the standpoint of genetics, macroevolution is fishy.

 

[Featherbop]

Evolution from parrots would be so much useful and fun. I mean, I've always wanted to fly...

 

[Vic C.]

Evolution from parrots would be so much useful and fun. I mean, I've always wanted to fly...

Well...you already have the 'feathers'. :

 

[Barbarian]

You have evidently not talked to Henry Gee from the British journal NATURE. He is one of the most well-known evolutionists.

Not in the first rank, anyway. But still a pretty well-respected expert. Do you know what he actually wrote about this?

Darwin's theory is haphazard.

Let's see...

Living things are always a bit different than their parents.

Differences which make an organism less likely to survive to reproduce tend to disappear in a population.

Differences which make an organism more likely to survive to reproduce tend to become more common in a population.

Differences accumulate.

Sometimes, one part of a population becomes different enough that it can no longer reproduce reliably with the rest of the population, and a new species evolves.

What's haphazard about that?

Sentient life could have more easily evolved from a parrot.

Not likely. Too small. Brains seem to have to get to a certain size in order to permit the kinds of functions you see in human brains. Parrots are, however, remarkably intelligent for the size of their brains. (size is not the only requirement, of course, nor do normal variations in human brain size show any correlation with intelligence)

Why hasn't it?

Skull is too small to form a cerebral cortex, for one thing. It seems to be a highly unlikely thing to evolve. Why do we see only line of organisms form heat sensors capable of forming an image? It seems like a very useful adaptation, but only snakes have so far done it. Contingency is part of life, and of evolution. Natural selection can't create anything, it can only select from that which chance produces.

That's my point. There's probably been millions of years for the genes of the parrot species to mutate and form a higher form of life.

"Higher" doesn't have any meaning in biology. Parrots are rather well-adapted and highly evolved to a specific way of life. They happen to be very intelligent for birds, probably for the same reason that fruit-eating primates are also more intelligent than leaf-eating ones. They need to be able to process and understand the cycles of fruiting for various plants.

On the standpoint of genetics, macroevolution is fishy.

Since we've directly observed macroevolution, it's no longer a question of whether or not it happens. Most creationists now admit that new species, genera, and even families of organisms can now evolve. The "baraminologists" (creationists studying the question of "kinds") generally set the limit at new families.