[_ Old Earth _] Do Birds' Lungs Throttle Evolution?

[Asyncritus]

Asyncritus, you damage your own argument when you use such phrases as

The reader is forced to wonder

1. whether it is a deliberate straw-man, and you are well aware that evolution never (ever) depends upon an organism "deciding" on a change, but you want to pretend that was Barbarian's argument (when it never was) and knock down that false argument; or
2. whether you are actually unaware of the fact that evolution never (ever) depends upon an organism "deciding" on a change.

You've used such phrases quite a bit in your rebuttals, and the audiance is anxious to know - is the answer 1 or 2?

You have heard of the word 'parody' Rhea? That's just what this is.

Evolution has not occurred, Rhea, contrary to the scientists persistent and long continued bamboozling of the public and deluding of themselves.

We have a classic case in point right here, now.

There is no way that a balloon type lung can 'evolve' into a 'wind tunnel' or 'jet engine' type lung.

Barbarian is attempting to put up somebody's ad hoc hypothesis and it will end in disaster for the theory, as you'll see.

 

[lordkalvan]

You have heard of the word 'parody' Rhea? That's just what this is.

And it is, of course, quite misleading and misrepresents - presumably intentionally - the tenets of evolutionary theory and what we observe of evolution actually taking place.

Evolution has not occurred, Rhea, contrary to the scientists persistent and long continued bamboozling of the public and deluding of themselves.

You have not demonstrated this, you have simply asserted it, demanding that others prove to your satisfaction that evolution occurs - a clearly impossible objective as you have continually proclaimed its 'impossibility'.

We have a classic case in point right here, now.

There is no way that a balloon type lung can 'evolve' into a 'wind tunnel' or 'jet engine' type lung.

'No way' being your reasoned refutation of Barbarian's arguments and points. I rest my case.

Barbarian is attempting to put up somebody's ad hoc hypothesis and it will end in disaster for the theory, as you'll see.

Why is the hypothesis 'ad hoc'? You do understand what an hypothesis is, don't you, and the processes by which it is either falsified or shown to be explanatory of the evidence? I fail to see why you imagine that if a particular hypothesis is shown to be insufficient in its explanation, you suppose this would be a disaster for evolutionary theory, but then as you have yet to show that it is insufficient it rather looks as if the theory will shoulder on explaining observed evidence and offering predictions about the diversity and development of life while you do nothing other than offer your personal disbelief as 'proof' of its inadequacy.

 

[Rhea]

Asyncritus, you damage your own argument when you use such phrases as

The reader is forced to wonder

1. whether it is a deliberate straw-man, and you are well aware that evolution never (ever) depends upon an organism "deciding" on a change, but you want to pretend that was Barbarian's argument (when it never was) and knock down that false argument; or
2. whether you are actually unaware of the fact that evolution never (ever) depends upon an organism "deciding" on a change.

You've used such phrases quite a bit in your rebuttals, and the audiance is anxious to know - is the answer 1 or 2?

You have heard of the word 'parody' Rhea? That's just what this is.

So your answer is 1, then. A deliberate misrepresentation of what Barbarian said, so that it can be smashed and a victory claimed even though barbarian never said it.


oh, wait!

Evolution has not occurred, Rhea, contrary to the scientists persistent and long continued bamboozling of the public and deluding of themselves.

We have a classic case in point right here, now.

There is no way that a balloon type lung can 'evolve' into a 'wind tunnel' or 'jet engine' type lung.

It's number 2 after all.


Humor and parody aside, the arguments he is showing are very repeatable in nature and do make sense. An organ exists, it has a feature that, when expanded, takes over from the previous feature because it has some advantage in that animal.

From the (quite less than barbarian) study I have done on the mechanisms of biology, reproduction and evolution, it appears quite common for biological changes to happen via the basic pathway of duplication followed by specialization. First the organ has many of something, then some of them mutate allowing some overlap of function, then if the new mutations have some advantage, they tend to develop further and the previous version may be mutated into being deleted.

It can be hard to be open to hearing about it if you are already committed to evolution being unbiblical and therefore impossible by definition despite the evidence, I understand that. But if one is willing to look at the data without assuming the conclusion ahead of time, one can discover that the data can make sense in new ways.

And Barbarian's answers are well described to show the step-by-step process by which such a change could occur without a fatal mutation in the process.

First the feature duplicates, often by mutation. Then some of those duplicates can mutate and possibly become something that is more efficient than the rest of the features, then the less useful features may mutate into deletion.

Look at your hand, for example. The mutations which create a "thumb" have no effect on the other fingers. Therefore the thumb can evolve by mutation and if it hits a bad mutation, the organism is able to have all the function of the non-thumb fingers. But if the thumb ends up being very useful indeed, the hand might end up with mutations that shorten the now-not-so-necessary pinky without any risk to the crittur who used to rely on them.

Hands, from what I read, went through a stage of having many duplications - up to 17 fingers. Most organisms lost no survival when they lost many of those fingers to deletion mutations, and now practically nothing has more than 6. But the fossil record shows a lot of many fingered hands in the past.

The lobster is another example of an organism mutating to have many appendages, and over time further mutations created useful specialization in those duplicates such that it has mandibles, claws, pincers, walking legs and a swimming tail all doing different jobs.

This description from barbarian on LUNGS follows this well -established and highly supported evolutionary path. The lungs have many of these pores, a mutation enlarging some could prove an advantage to a creature so it survives. Further mutations diminish the older-version extras because the new version is more efficient, until finally one just two, one now an in and the other now an out, are all that remain.

Mine is a very broad and lay description, and Barbarian is telling it in a much more detailed and supported way - but that's the gist that makes it a robust description. We know those pathways have worked, so we can picture them working again in this organism. Step by small step, change by small change.

It's kind of like my buddy's 1978 Ford Bronco. It's had a hard life 4-wheelin in the woods, and at this point, my friend claims, "the only original equipment left on this thing is the left rear blinker lens." But the truck never died for good, even though every piece on it has bit by bit been replaced with something new.

 

[Asyncritus]

Rhea

Do not mistake Barbarian's contributions for fact.

They are, as I have highlighted in several of his posts, entirely hypothetical constructions, with absolutely no fossil evidence to support them.

Anybody can invent possible scenarios with a bit of imagination. You could, I could, Barbarian could.

What he is doing is to present hypotheticals as if they are genuine facts - and flies completely in the face of of the real facts which I have put forward.

There is NO guesswork about what I've said - any reputable textbook (or google search) of avian anatomy and physiology will tell you the same thing.

By contrast, Barbarian has produce somebody's hypothetical scenario. That somebody admitted the hypothetical nature of his 'work'.

You are mistaken if you substitute guesswork for facts because of Barbarian's seeming plausibility: but unfortunately, he's wrong with a vengeance.

I wrote a reply to his post, but clicked it off by mistake. I will now set about doing so again. Look out for the highlighted bits, which show just how much guesswork is involved.

 

[Rhea]

Rhea

Do not mistake Barbarian's contributions for fact.

I don't. Nor do I mistake yours for fact.
His are hypotheses that are based in fact.
Yours are assertions that have absolutely nothing behind them.

His say, this could happen by this pathway, which we've seen as fact in analogous situations.

Yours say, "This cannot happen, because I say so!"

What he is doing is to present hypotheticals as if they are genuine facts - and flies completely in the face of of the real facts which I have put forward.

There is NO guesswork about what I've said - any reputable textbook (or google search) of avian anatomy and physiology will tell you the same thing.

You have put forward no facts. You've yelled and shouted that this is impossible! But there is no fact to your claim. Nothing but empty words.

The claims you make "that this is impossible" cannot be found in any textbook. This is another false claim of yours.

By contrast, Barbarian has produce somebody's hypothetical scenario. That somebody admitted the hypothetical nature of his 'work'.

You are mistaken if you substitute guesswork for facts because of Barbarian's seeming plausibility: but unfortunately, he's wrong with a vengeance.

Actually, he's not, given what you just wrote. He is not claiming facts, and I am not reading "facts".

He is proposing pathways and they are all infinitely more plausible than goddidit. The facts behind his plausible pathway are real and verifiable and repeatable in the fossil record. We know that the fossil record shows that organisms *DO* evolve using the pathway of duplication followed by specialization. Plenty of FACT there.

Your claim is that even though we see plenty of evidence for this mechanism a million times in the fossil record and DNA record, it's "just guesswork" to presume that it has happened for the 1,000,001st time.

I do realize this is hard for you to accept because you have a very powerful reason to want it to be not true. Much much MUCH more powerful than Barbarian's or mine for caring whether it *is* true. If I am wrong, I say, "oh cool, well then, what did happen?" But if you are wrong your worldview falls apart.

He has been presenting pathways for this evolution based on the fossil record and DNA record of evolution. Pathways that are documented for other organs and are just as likely to be true for this one.

You have presented the argument, "It's IMPOSSIBLE! Because it's IMPOSSIBLE!!!!"

Which just isn't very convincing in discrediting his careful outline of the support for his claim. You've failed to understand the pathway he has proposed, failed to address the individual steps, failed to present any evidence to counter his claim.

You have merely shouted, "CAN'T HAPPEN!! BECAUSE I SAID IT COULDN'T!!"

 

[Asyncritus]

The Pores of Kohn are pores between adjacent alveoli, or interalveolar connections. They function as a means of collateral ventilation; that is, if the lung is partially deflated, ventilation can occur to some extent through these pores.

We’re not discussing ‘collateral ventilation’, ‘to some extent’ Barbarian.

We are discussing an entire respiratory system which cannot be described as ‘collateral ventilation’, nor can it be derived from ‘collateral ventilation’.

You have no PROOF whatsoever that it did, and what follows is entirely guesswork by Parry, swallowed uncritically by yourself.

You keep on about the pores of Kohn, your hope of salvation in this matter.

As I have said, BIRDS DO NOT BREATHE WITH ALVEOLI. There are none in their lungs.

Avian lungs do not have alveoli as mammalian lungs do, they have Faveolar lungs. They contain millions of tiny passages known as para-bronchi, connected at both ends by the dorsobronchi.

.

Did you get that? Avian lungs do not have alveoli as mammalian lungs do.

You and Parry are seeking to derive parabronchial TUBES from alveoli which are SACS, blind-ending SACS. If you’re trying to say that pores (which by definition are micrometric ‘holes’) can become ‘tubes’, then you’re on to a major loser here. A hole cannot become a tube. Try it some time.

The airflow through the avian lung always travels in the same direction – posterior to anterior. This

is in contrast to the mammalian system, in which the direction of airflow in the lung is tidal, reversing between inhalation and exhalation.

Did you learn anything from that? The two types of air movement in birds and mammals and reptiles are entirely opposite to one another. They are in contrast to one another.

In birds, the air flows entirely in one direction, in the other animals it flows in TWO DIRECTIONS in the same lung.

You are seeking to explain how a balloon could become a jet engine or a wind tunnel in principle. The only way is for a hole to appear in the bottom of the balloon. In reptilian terms, that means immediate death.

But I await your ‘explanation’.

Just to point out, air moving from alveolus to alveolus only adds to your discomfiture – because in the bird lung they do nothing of the kind.

In the bird, the trachea does not branch and become bronchi which enter the lungs. It connects directly to the AIR SACS, which themselves connect to the lungs.

Don't you know what that means?

It means that it functions as a secondary airway. The air goes down into the alveolus, through the pores of Kohn, and back out another bronchus via another alveolus.

Precisely. So the air re-enters the same lung and out via the trachea. TWO-WAY airflow, in other words, pores of Kohn notwithstanding.

You are, I fear, no further forward with your ‘explanation’ of how a ONE WAY airflow system could be derived from a two-way system.

In the birds, please note again, there is ONE WAY traffic. The inhaled air NEVER PASSES OUT THE WAY IT ENTERED, until it returns to the trachea.

That's what collateral ventilation is.

Come now Barbarian, you’re cleverer than to say such a thing, aren’t you? In case you missed it, please re-read the above.

To put it even more simply, in the birds, AIR ENTERS THE LUNG ON THE EXHALATION CYCLE.
Try explaining that fact.

As you learned, that's what happens in collateral ventilation.

As you haven’t learned, it isn’t.

The exhalation of air through the pores of Kohn, into another avleolus and out the trachae, also pulls new air into the alveolus.

That's how it works.

And where does the air go after it leaves the final alveolus? You guessed it – right into the lung again. Back to two way traffic.

You must know this isn’t remotely like the birds lungs. If not, do have a careful look at the anatomy of the bird lung and its mechanics.

As you learned, it's quite easy to see how very simple changes could produce the highly refined form of collateral ventilation we see in birds.

Simple changes hey? You’ve clearly never given the matter much thought.

Consider the consequential changes necessary for a reptile’s respiratory system to become an avian.

1 The entire reptilian system has to be abandoned, and a completely new one put in place.

2 A hole has to appear at the bottom of the reptile lung for the air to pass out.

3 The trachea has to become disconnected from the bronchi which lead into the reptile’s lungs, and reconnected to the air sacs

4 The air sacs have to appear from somewhere

5 And develop entirely new connections to the lung. The air sacs are now intermediate between the trachea and the lungs. They never were before.

6 The alveoli have to pack up altogether, and the new system of parabronchi substituted.

7 The parabronchi now have to merge and become an airway leading to the nares

8 The costal musculature of the reptile has to become irrelevant, because the birds’ ribs play no or very little part is its respiration – totally unlike the reptilian system which is similar to our own.

9 The entire innervation of the whole structure has to be altered, because the bird’s lung function is totally different to the reptile’s.

10 Most damaging of all, the new instincts required to employ the new structures have to come from somewhere. They were not present in the reptile, and represent the input/addition of a colossal amount of new information. Where did it come from?

Let me point out that if those new powering instincts were not present from the first appearance of the lung of a bird, the bird would not ‘know’ how to breathe, and would immediately perish.

I think that’s enough for you to be going on with for a while.

I’ll return to the rest of your post tomorrow, hopefully.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
The Pores of Kohn are pores between adjacent alveoli, or interalveolar connections. They function as a means of collateral ventilation; that is, if the lung is partially deflated, ventilation can occur to some extent through these pores.

We’re not discussing ‘collateral ventilation’, ‘to some extent’ Barbarian.

Indeed. We are now discussing how this primitive system evolved to become the similar but more efficient one in birds.

We are discussing an entire respiratory system which cannot be described as ‘collateral ventilation’,

It is now primary ventilation. But it works the same way as collateral ventilation works in mammals.

nor can it be derived from ‘collateral ventilation’.

As you just learned, your assertion is wrong. There are a number of very simple ways that one could evolve from the other.

You have no PROOF whatsoever that it did, and what follows is entirely guesswork by Parry, swallowed uncritically by yourself.

It's just one example. I showed you a slightly different possibility. It doesn't matter how it happened; each of these demonstrates that your story is false.

You keep on about the pores of Kohn, your hope of salvation in this matter.

Given the evidence, that's all that's needed.

As I have said, BIRDS DO NOT BREATHE WITH ALVEOLI. There are none in their lungs.

They don't breath with ribs, either. But they still have the intercostals, just as we see the avian system is indistinguishable from a single large alveolus.

You and Parry are seeking to derive parabronchial TUBES from alveoli which are SACS, blind-ending SACS.

Turns out they aren't. That's what has you worked up. The Pores of Kohn join adjacent alveoli through the Channels of Lambert. So they aren't the "blind-ending SACS" you were told they were. I can see you're disappointed that the source from which you copied this one didn't tell you the whole truth about it. But that's how things go, sometimes.

If you’re trying to say that pores (which by definition are micrometric ‘holes’) can become ‘tubes’, then you’re on to a major loser here.

The pores are just the openings. The Channels of Lambert are the tubes. Didn't tell you about those, either, um?

Distal hyper-inflation is believed to be caused by collateral ventilation through intraalveolar pores of Kohn, bronchoalveolar channels of Lambert, and interbronchiolar channels (5,9,10).
Bronchial Atresia

The airflow through the avian lung always travels in the same direction – posterior to anterior.

As in collateral ventilation, which does not work as the tidal process produced by the diaphragm.

Is is starting to come together for you, now?

Don't you know what that means?
It means that it functions as a secondary airway. The air goes down into the alveolus, through the pores of Kohn, and back out another bronchus via another alveolus.

Which is a flow-through process, instead of the usual, tidal process. Like that of birds. In one way, out another.

So the air re-enters the same lung and out via the trachea.

Your diagram shows that bird lungs work that way.

In the birds, please note again, there is ONE WAY traffic. The inhaled air NEVER PASSES OUT THE WAY IT ENTERED, until it returns to the trachea.
That's what collateral ventilation is.

Barbarian observes:
As you learned, it's quite easy to see how very simple changes could produce the highly refined form of collateral ventilation we see in birds.

Simple changes hey? You’ve clearly never given the matter much thought.

I can only point out that I actually understand the physiology and structures involved. And the very existence of some of them were a complete surprise for you.

You're now reduced to merely repeating your assertions as if they were some kind of chant against facts. It won't work. As you learned, collateral ventilation is essentially the system found in birds. It's just opened up and simplified to become the primary system.

And since it worked even in non-birds, there's no instinct required for it. Whatever instinct might have been necessary, was already present.

Your claim is a very old PRATT. It never did work. Learn from it and go on.

 

[Asyncritus]

Barbarian observes:
The Pores of Kohn are pores between adjacent alveoli, or interalveolar connections. They function as a means of collateral ventilation; that is, if the lung is partially deflated, ventilation can occur to some extent through these pores.

Indeed. We are now discussing how this primitive system evolved to become the similar but more efficient one in birds.

I don't know why this isn't getting across to you.

Your pores of Kohn and channels of Lambert allow air passage BETWEEN ALVEOLI IN THE SAME LUNG.

Try some common sense here.

The alveoli interconnect - But that is not the case in the birds. THERE ARE NO ALVEOLI in the bird lung. I thought I gave you a quotation on that point - do you want it again?

So if there are no alveoli in the bird lung, your pores of Kohn and channels of Lambert bear NO RELATIONSHIP to the entirely different lung structure of birds. You are wasting my time here, Barbarian.

So where did all these millions of alveoli go, then?

And where did all there parabronchi come from?

It is now primary ventilation. But it works the same way as collateral ventilation works in mammals.

Now you're being silly.

The vast, vast proportion of breathing in mammals and reptiles occurs in the entry and exit of tidal air into and out of the alveoli. The Kohn and Lambert structures play very little part in that. That must be obvious from their sheer lack of size.

The pores are just the openings. The Channels of Lambert are the tubes. Didn't tell you about those, either, um?

Distal hyper-inflation is believed to be caused by collateral ventilation through intraalveolar pores of Kohn, bronchoalveolar channels of Lambert, and interbronchiolar channels (5,9,10).
Bronchial Atresia

Did you miss the name of the article you cited? Bronchial atresia is a pulmonary anomaly of unknown etiology in which a segmental bronchus does not communicate with the central airways.

If these things work, it is because of ABNORMALITY, and that is a far cry from the normal functioning of bird lungs.

So you still have the same little problem. In atresia the air uses these passages (in abnormal fashion) TO RE-ENTER THE LUNG. So the cycle, like your problem, remains intact - two way airflow in the same lung.

I will say it again: In the bird, the trachea does not communicate with the lung on inhalation. The air passes from trachea into the air sacs, and from the sacs into the lungs - which have no alveoli.

So to diagram the structure again:

Reptile/mammal:

Trachea ---> bronchus ---> alveolus---> bronchus ---> trachea

Bird:

Trachea--->airsac ---> lung (NO alveoli, parabronchi instead) --->trachea.

Do you observe any major differences? You should.

Now to diagram your pores/channels.

bronchus--->alveolus---.pore/channel--->alveolus--->bronchus---...

Nothing has changed: your case is in the same pickle as before.

I hope this is contributing something to your store of information, which does need a bit of updating and proper assimilation.

It's just one example. I showed you a slightly different possibility. It doesn't matter how it happened; each of these demonstrates that your story is false.

With respect B, you've done nothing of the kind. You have merely shown and additional way for air to pass from one alveolus to another and then back to the same bronchus.

You're running out of options now.

They don't breath with ribs, either. But they still have the intercostals, just as we see the avian system is indistinguishable from a single large alveolus.

You really can't be serious.

Shall I treat you to some quotes which underline the differences?

The avian respiratory system is different from that of other vertebrates, with birds having relatively small lungs plus nine air sacs that play an important role in respiration (but are not directly involved in the exchange of gases).
Bird Respiratory System

Avian lungs do not have alveoli, as mammalian lungs do, but instead contain millions of tiny passages known as parabronchi, connected at either ends by the dorsobronchi and ventrobronchi.

Bird anatomy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice that? Connected AT EITHER END. An alveolus, such as birds don't have, is single ended.

Got that? So far, so bad for your case.

Turns out they aren't. That's what has you worked up. The Pores of Kohn join adjacent alveoli through the Channels of Lambert. So they aren't the "blind-ending SACS" you were told they were.

They connect, microscopically, to OTHER ALVEOLI, which end in the same place: the lung cavity and the bronchus. Can you see that, or do we need another diagram? I'm feeling generous today. Here it is again:

bronchus--->alveolus---.pore/channel--->alveolus--->bronchus---...

Which is a flow-through process, instead of the usual, tidal process. Like that of birds. In one way, out another.

Barbarian observes:
As you learned, it's quite easy to see how very simple changes could produce the highly refined form of collateral ventilation we see in birds.

:toofunny

I can only point out that I actually understand the physiology and structures involved. And the very existence of some of them were a complete surprise for you.

Alas, you were misinformed and misdirected, and didn't read your quoted source re atresia.

But you're right, I was surprised that someone as perspicacious as you usually are, can't see that the closed system remains a closed system. I'm also surprised that you have no conception of the vast differences in the gross anatomy of the bird and reptile respiratory system,

You're now reduced to merely repeating your assertions as if they were some kind of chant against facts. It won't work. As you learned, collateral ventilation is essentially the system found in birds. It's just opened up and simplified to become the primary system.

The word 'collateral' betrays you. It means 'alongside the main one'.

The bird resp system can in no way be described as collateral to anything - it is the main structure - with enormous anatomical differences to the reptiles.

I'm waiting to hear your observations on the consequential changes I mentioned:

1 The entire reptilian system has to be abandoned, and a completely new one put in place.
2 A hole has to appear at the bottom of the reptile lung for the air to pass out.
3 The trachea has to become disconnected from the bronchi which lead into the reptile’s lungs, and reconnected to the air sacs
4 The air sacs have to appear from somewhere
5 And develop entirely new connections to the lung. The air sacs are now intermediate between the trachea and the lungs. They never were before.
6 The alveoli have to pack up altogether, and the new system of parabronchi substituted.
7 The parabronchi now have to merge and become an airway leading to the nares
8 The costal musculature of the reptile has to become irrelevant, because the birds’ ribs play no or very little part is its respiration – totally unlike the reptilian system which is similar to our own.
9 The entire innervation of the whole structure has to be altered, because the bird’s lung function is totally different to the reptile’s.

10 Most damaging of all, the new instincts required to employ the new structures have to come from somewhere. They were not present in the reptile, and represent the input/addition of a colossal amount of new information. Where did it come from?

Let me point out that if those new powering instincts were not present from the first appearance of the lung of a bird, the bird would not ‘know’ how to breathe, and would immediately perish.

 

[Barbarian]

I don't know why this isn't getting across to you.

The reason it's going so badly for you is that I know every move you're going to make, and I already have the evidence to show why it won't work. You're cutting and pasting from ancient gambits creationists have used for decades, and the evidence used to scuttle them is already known to me.

Your pores of Kohn and channels of Lambert allow air passage BETWEEN ALVEOLI IN THE SAME LUNG.

Yeah, the evidence shows that the avian lung is essentially like a large alveolus. Simplification. As the diagram showed you, there's a very easy transition from almost entirely tidal to almost entirely flow-through ventilation.

The alveoli interconnect - But that is not the case in the birds. THERE ARE NO ALVEOLI in the bird lung.

Here's a hint:
THERE IS NO QUADRATE BONE in the mammalian skull. But there is the stapes, which evolved from it (evidence for that will be demonstrated in another thread, if you want to see it).

Changing the name does not actually change the evolutionary source.

I thought I gave you a quotation on that point - do you want it again?

Sorry, as you learned, quote-mining is highly ineffectual. I don't know why you guys keep doing it.

So if there are no alveoli in the bird lung, your pores of Kohn and channels of Lambert bear NO RELATIONSHIP to the entirely different lung structure of birds. You are wasting my time here, Barbarian.

See above. You've been gulled on this. Let it go and learn from it.

To where did all these millions of alveoli go, then?

Simplification. They were reduced in number as some were modified. Read the diagrams and the links.

And where did all there parabronchi come from?

Check the diagram. Surprise.

Barbarian observes:
It is now primary ventilation. But it works the same way as collateral ventilation works in mammals.

Now you're being silly.

Now you've abandoned any pretense at reason, and are just calling names.

The vast, vast proportion of breathing in mammals and reptiles occurs in the entry and exit of tidal air into and out of the alveoli. The Kohn and Lambert structures play very little part in that. That must be obvious from their sheer lack of size.

So your argument is that the relative sizes of structures in animals cannot change? Check out legs in dogs. Demonstrably false. Got anything else?

Barbarian chuckles:
The pores are just the openings. The Channels of Lambert are the tubes. Didn't tell you about those, either, um?

Did you miss the name of the article you cited? Bronchial atresia is a pulmonary anomaly of unknown etiology in which a segmental bronchus does not communicate with the central airways.

Yep. That's why they call it "collateral" ventilation. It takes over mostly in cases when the regular system is impaired. Again, you're assuming that the relative ratios of the two can never change. So you still have the same little problem.

Barbarian observes:
It's just one example. I showed you a slightly different possibility. It doesn't matter how it happened; each of these demonstrates that your story is false.

With respect B, you've done nothing of the kind. You have merely shown and additional way for air to pass from one alveolus to another and then back to the same bronchus.

Enlarge that, and reduce the others, and you have the bird system. Easy. You're running out of options now.

Barbarian observes:
They don't breath with ribs, either. But they still have the intercostals, just as we see the avian system is indistinguishable from a single large alveolus.

You really can't be serious.

It's true. The reptilian system was operated by ribs. Then, over time, a partial then full diaphragm evolved. But the old system is still partially functioning.

Shall I treat you to some quotes which underline the differences?

Quote mining is what got you in trouble in the first place. Remember, when you cut and paste from those creationist sites, you are only seeing what they want you to see of the quote, and even then, they often switch words to "improve" the quote.

The avian respiratory system is different from that of other vertebrates, with birds having relatively small lungs plus nine air sacs that play an important role in respiration (but are not directly involved in the exchange of gases).
Bird Respiratory System

And as you learned, this had already begun to evolve in the case of dinosaurs, but had not evolved completely by the first birds (Archaeopteryx, for example, had reptilian ribs for breathing, and could not have had the full avian system)

Avian lungs do not have alveoli, as mammalian lungs do,

See above.

Notice that? Connected AT EITHER END. An alveolus, such as birds don't have, is single ended.

As you learned, they aren't. Instead of being dead-end sacs, they communicate with others through the pores of Kohn and the channels of Lambert. You learned this earlier.

They connect, microscopically, to OTHER ALVEOLI, which end in the same place: the lung cavity and the bronchus.

Barbarian observes:
As you learned, it's quite easy to see how very simple changes could produce the highly refined form of collateral ventilation we see in birds.

I can only point out that I actually understand the physiology and structures involved. And the very existence of some of them were a complete surprise for you.

Alas, you were misinformed and misdirected

I showed you scholarly sources for them. You've shown me what you cut and paste from creationist websites.

Barbarian observes:
You're now reduced to merely repeating your assertions as if they were some kind of chant against facts. It won't work. As you learned, collateral ventilation is essentially the system found in birds. It's just opened up and simplified to become the primary system.

The word 'collateral' betrays you. It means 'alongside the main one'.

It is in mammals, just as the thoractic pump is a collateral one in mammals, but the main one in reptiles. Rock and a hard place.

1 The entire reptilian system has to be abandoned, and a completely new one put in place.

But it's not. In fact, parts of the old reptilian system, like air sacs, are retained, while other parts simplified or elaborated to a new function.

2 A hole has to appear at the bottom of the reptile lung for the air to pass out.

They are called "Pores of Kohn", and they already exist in reptiles.

3 The trachea has to become disconnected from the bronchi which lead into the reptile’s lungs, and reconnected to the air sacs

Or individual bronchioles could enlarge and others be reduced or eliminated.

The air sacs have to appear from somewhere

Already existed in some reptiles. Matter of fact, they existed in the line of reptiles from which birds evolved.

And develop entirely new connections to the lung.

Already existed.

6 The alveoli have to pack up altogether, and the new system of parabronchi substituted.

Check the diagram. A gradual restructuring of these into the modern form.

parabronchi now have to merge and become an airway leading to the nares

Simplification is no difficulty. It's directly observed to happen. The evolution of a new physical structure has been directly observed, so that's not a difficulty.

The costal musculature of the reptile has to become irrelevant, because the birds’ ribs play no or very little part is its respiration – totally unlike the reptilian system which is similar to our own.

This gradually happened, but long after birds appeared. Archaeopteryx, for example, has dinosaur ribs, and breathed mainly by the thoractic pump.

9 The entire innervation of the whole structure has to be altered, because the bird’s lung function is totally different to the reptile’s.

No, that's wrong. For example in the alignment of the quadrate from the jaw to the inner ear, the ennervation remained the same. The brain changed a bit to accomodate the change, but the nerves don't change. The same cranial nerves that pick up vibration in the lizard jaw, pick up sound in the mammalian ear.

10 Most damaging of all, the new instincts required to employ the new structures have to come from somewhere.

Nope. Collateral ventilation already existed, being merely enlarged to the primary form in birds. No need for "new instincts."

Learn from this. And come up with some ideas of your own.

 

[Asyncritus]

Let me make the point, as you repeat it so frequently in the following.

NO QUOTATION I HAVE MADE COMES FROM A CREATIONIST SITE.

They are mostly from wiki, which, I hadn't heard was a creationist site.

But even if they were, the label 'creationist' doesn't automatically mean that they are wrong, either in content or intent. Because your quotes are from (I suppose) non-creationist sites, it doesn't automatically follow that they are wrong either.

So stop the labelling game. To stop you, I'm going to (as I should have been, I admit) attribute the quotes properly.

The reason it's going so badly for you is that I know every move you're going to make, and I already have the evidence to show why it won't work. You're cutting and pasting from ancient gambits creationists have used for decades, and the evidence used to scuttle them is already known to me.

See above.

There are no gambits here B. Only facts, as you have found out the hard way.

As the diagram showed you, there's a very easy transition from almost entirely tidal to almost entirely flow-through ventilation.

You've just got to be joking. Or in the dark. Not much choice there.

Once more:

The requirement is for a blind ended alveolus to become a through-flow parabronchus. (You say that the PoKs, and CoLs answer that requirement).

Let's keep this simple, as you seem to have difficulty grasping this concept.

I wish I had a blackboard to draw you some diagrams (nice simple ones, of course), and I'm sure you'd get it quickly.

EVERY ALVEOLUS HAS ONE ENTRANCE, WHICH IS ALSO THE EXIT: THE BRONCHIOLE, WHICH BECOMES THE BRONCHUS.

So now, let's suppose that every alveolus is hooked up to every other, via your PoKs and CoLs.

Have the exits moved? Have they become anything other than the bronchioles? How does air exit the lung? Via what?

All together now class:

via the bronchiole --->bronchus--->trachea.

Nothing's changed. Still a two-way system. Here's a nice picture for you:

View attachment 2082

Can you see that even if every alveolus connected with every other, THE EXIT WOULD STILL BE THE BRONCHIOLE? There's no other way out!

Got it? Finally?

This is a part of the ammalian/reptilian lung, where air goes on INHALATION AND EXHALATION.

In the bird lung, dear friends and readers IT SIMPLY DOES NOT WORK LIKE THIS!

This little diagram puts it as clearly as humanly possible:

View attachment 2083


Making sense now? Just a little clearer perhaps? Please say yes.

Now let's imagine a scenario where the alveolar structure is going to 'evolve' into a bird lung.

What's got to happen?

A lot.

Remaining at this level size-wise: The alveoli, EVERY ONE OF THEM, has to develop a hole in the bottom for the air to pass through. Every one of the zillions of them, has got to become a tiny TUBE.

Hey B - how many mutations do you think that's gonna take?

Suppose that happens, we've now got a zillion little tubes, going where?

Ah, I forgot. Too bad. Must mention this:

Now dear friends and neighbours, here's a strange thing. Best illustrated with a nice picture. This is the mammalian/reptilian lung - which, I hope you remember, is going to turn into the bird lung.

View attachment 2084

(From Oxford University Press via google images)

Follow me here.

See that big tube in the middle? That's the trachea or windpipe.

Air goes down that tube, into the branches called bronchi (in case you were wondering what those might be).

Those bronchi branch into smaller tubes called bronchioles, and those end in the ALVEOLI, the grape-like structures in the first picture above.

When we breathe out, the air simply reverses its flow, goes back into the trachea, and out.

With me so far? OK.

 

[Asyncritus]

Now get this. Look at this diagram, and you'll see the problem Barbarian has to explain (and not doing too well at).

PS Does anybody know how to enlarge this diagram ? Be glad of the help.


View attachment 2085

(a) Notice what happens in inspiration? NO AIR ENTERS THE LUNG ITSELF, but it goes into the air-sacs 1,2,3,4

(b) shows that the air enters the lung ON EXHALATION from the airsacs.

There, that's the problem.

The whole avian system works IN REVERSE to the reptile/mammalian system. Air goes into the lung on EXHALATION - and there are no alveoli: NOT ONE.

Only those nice microtubules called parabronchi, open at both ends.

Now how many zillion mutations did it take to 'reverse engineer' the whole reptile shoot?

Easy, says Barbarian. Yes, say I: for a Creator who didn't have to rely on mutations and natural selection.

I think evolution is dead in the water right here. The above are FACTS. Not a single interpretation.

There is really no accounting for this incredible difference between the bird respiratory system and the reptile's.

So I won't go on about it. Barbarian really ought to throw in the towel somewhere round about here, but knowing evolutionists as well as I do, there's no hope of his doing that.

I'm going to leave this particular discussion at this point, as I don't see much to be gained by continuing.

The FACTS are plain, the interpretation is obvious.

To conclude with Michael Denton's words (from Evolution, A Theory in Crisis):

The avian lung and the feather bring us very close to answering Darwin's challenge:

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive , slight modifications, my theory would immediately break down.

...Altogether it adds up to an enormous conceptual difficulty in envisaging how a reptile could have been gradually converted into a bird.

 

[lordkalvan]

Now get this. Look at this diagram, and you'll see the problem Barbarian has to explain (and not doing too well at).....

That you don't like Barbarian's explanation does not mean that he has not offered an explanation sufficient to demolish the only grounds you have to offer for disliking it, i.e. personal incredulity and the fact that evolutionary theory does not sit well with your theologically-derived, childlike view of creation (natural or otherwise). The futility of your 'counterarguments' are illustrated by the assertions, misrepresentations, misunderstandings and dashes of personal incredulity that litter them. In effect, what your points amount to is that X is not possible because you don't believe that X is possible. Ironically, the quote you rely on to to show Darwin's 'challenge has been met comes from a work published nearly 30 years ago, since when there has been no further sign that these alleged problems have anything like the significance you attempt to attribute to them. rather like bat-wings and echolocation, for example..

 

[Rhea]

Ironically, the quote you rely on to to show Darwin's 'challenge has been met comes from a work published nearly 30 years ago, since when there has been no further sign that these alleged problems have anything like the significance you attempt to attribute to them..

For those of us interested in seeing what passed for opinion 30 years ago, is there a link to the things that asynchritus has been posting? I have not seen any attribution. Are these quotes verbatim from someone else's work? Or is asynchritus the original author of that 30yo work (and if so, has he published anything new since 1980?)

 

[Barbarian]

Since Async is now recycling excuses already refuted, I should address another misconception I missed earlier:

The theory at present, holds that the birds evolved from the reptiles. That the scales of reptiles somehow became frayed out and turned into feathers over millions and millions of years.

No.

Look carefully at the scales on this snake.

http://www.oceanlight.com/thumbs/12585.jpg

Here’s a flight feather:

http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/Quarterly/amj2005/images/feather.jpg

Now look at this "sceather" from a reptile fossil:

Longisquama insignis had long, feather-like scales on it's back. But there's a lot more than that. It turns out that feathers are very likely derived from scutes (specialized reptilian scales found on thecodonts, dinosaurs, crocodilians and birds)

Drs. Hongyan Zou and Lee Niswander wondered what biological process allowed duck feet to remain webbed. Through experimentation they learned that the absence of certain proteins in the webbing of ducks allowed the webbing to remain throughout the fetus' development and entire life-cycle. The experimentation was carried out on the fetuses of cute, furry or feathered animals. At various stages of development, fetuses were injected with a virus that blocked development of a specific set of proteins in one of their limbs. In chicken embryos, the webbing of the toes were not absorbed and webbed feet were retained.

The lack of the proteins also caused the scutes on the foot to develop into feathers.

Scutes are the thick scales on the top of a bird's foot. There are smaller scutes on the back of the foot, called scutellae, and scales on the bottom of the digits, called reticulae. Analyses by Alan Brush have shown that bird scutes, scuttelae, claw sheathes, beak sheathes, and scales around the eyes are of the same chemical composition as feathers, and are controlled by the same genes. The reticulae have been shown to be identical to crocodilian scales both in composition and their location on the DNA strand.

In all cases where a chick was infected with the inhibitor virus at days 15-18 of development, at least some of the scutes developed into feathers. The feather development ranged from thickening of the edge of the scute, to short, fat feathers, to long, thin feather filaments. These feathers contained the barbs characteristic of normal feathers, although the barbs were more numerous. The scutellae also developed into feathers to various degrees.
Feathers, scutes and the origin of birds

I’m sure you can see some of the visible problems involved in producing the flight feather from the scale.

It's easier to do, if you know what you're talking about. Read and learn.

(Incidentally, there are about 10 DIFFERENT TYPES OF FEATHER on the same bird! All that from one scale? What nonsense.]

Turns out, they are developmentally very similar; the first feathers were very primitive, and only later did pinnate feathers and eventually asymmetrical flight feathers evolve.

When we look at the detailed structure of the feather, the problems become astronomical, and the evolution proposal absurd.

Turns out that the inactivation of a single gene can turn scales into feathers. Surprise.

That somehow, a torpid, cold-blooded reptile turned into the warm-blooded bird with probably the highest metabolic rate in the animal kingdom.

Evidence shows that many dinosaurs were warm-blooded.

(In case the pedants are out in force, I am referring to the ectothermic and endothermic animals. Ectotherms have variable body temperatures, endotherms have constant body temperatures).

You don't need big words. You need to learn about the subject. The highly active, feathered dromaeosaurs were almost certainly endotherms. They were insulated, something only small endotherms do, they have Haversian canals in their bones, something found only in endotherms, and they had a body structure for rapid running.

Again, knowing what you're talking about will help. Big words, not so much.

Whatever problems evolving that lot involved, they pale into insignificance in the presence of the one fact which I shall now describe. It is the difference between the lung of a reptile, and the lung of a bird.

As you now realize, much of the bird lung was already in the process in some advanced theropod dinosaurs. And there is nothing in the bird lung that could not have easily evolved from those dinosauran ones.

Indeed, Archaeopteryx retained dinosaur ribs, which would have required the dinosauran form of respiration. Later birds had fused ribs and only then did the bird lung reach its present form.

 

[lordkalvan]

For those of us interested in seeing what passed for opinion 30 years ago, is there a link to the things that asynchritus has been posting? I have not seen any attribution. Are these quotes verbatim from someone else's work? Or is asynchritus the original author of that 30yo work (and if so, has he published anything new since 1980?)

I think the Denton quote is from the 1980 book mentioned. As to the rest, who knows, although Wiki has been referred to once or twice.

 

[lordkalvan]

....So I won't go on about it. Barbarian really ought to throw in the towel somewhere round about here, but knowing evolutionists as well as I do, there's no hope of his doing that.

I'm going to leave this particular discussion at this point, as I don't see much to be gained by continuing.

The FACTS are plain, the interpretation is obvious. ....

I missed this gem before: unable to effectively respond to arguments, evidence and points that show an understanding to be wrong, victory is instead declared (often in upper case to make it a more emphatic triumph) and the thread decamped from. Classic.

 

[Deavonreye]

Hmmmmm. . . yes. What a common end to a thread.