• CFN has a new look and a new theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes will be coming in the future!

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join For His Glory for a discussion on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/

  • CFN welcomes new contributing members!

    Please welcome Roberto and Julia to our family

    Blessings in Christ, and hope you stay awhile!

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need

    https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

[_ Old Earth _] evolution or creation?

In fact, we know the Kakapo had ancestors that flew

No! It is assumed. Homology is not real science and most vestigial assumptions are also just assumptions...
 
In fact, we know the Kakapo had ancestors that flew

No! It is assumed.

Perhaps you don't know what "assume" means:
verb (used with object), assumed, assuming.
1. to take for granted or without proof:
to assume that everyone wants peace.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/assume

The fact that the Kakapo had ancestors that could fly is demonstrated by the vestigial keel (no longer useful for the kakapo, but still present, and otherwise only found in flying birds) and slightly assymetrical flight feathers (again, only otherwise found in flying birds). So the knowledge is the result of inferences from evidence, not assumptions.

Homology is not real science

Homology is a phenomenon. Common descent is the only theory that presently is capable of expaining it. And we can check it by other means, such as fossil transitionals and DNA analysis.
 
I believe it is ALSO found in birds that fly, not ONLY...we see them even in hens (though they are smaller does not necessitate that they were once larger and the Keel has absolutely nothing to do with flying) and no I absolutely understand what an assumption is and one is no better than any other....
 
I believe it is ALSO found in birds that fly, not ONLY...we see them even in hens (though they are smaller does not necessitate that they were once larger and the Keel has absolutely nothing to do with flying)

Your assumption is incorrect. The keel is required, much as the sagittal crest is required in some primates; as anchor for large muscles. The flight muscles of birds require a keel. No bird that flies lacks a keel and other than the kakapo, no bird that doesn't fly has one. The kakapo can still maneuver in the air, gliding down from high trees, but can no longer sustain flight as chickens can.

And, hens can fly, although weakly. They are quite capable of flying, although they prefer not to, if they can avoid it.

They fly up to the tree at about 1:40

They are on the same evolutionary path as the kakapo.

and no I absolutely understand what an assumption is and one is no better than any other....

You've certainly demonstrated one. But apparently, you didn't realize what it was.
 
And the Kakapo has a vestigial keel found only in flying birds.

First, it sounded like YOU were saying that only flying birds have a vestigial keel. Secondly, vestigial is a way EBs explain how some organ or features differ but this is also not shown to be true in most cases. Therefore, if you show me earlier Kakapos (like via fossils) with full keels, then I can accept they may have become less over time. Until then there is no proof and I do not accept that just because they have smaller ones than birds that fly that this means they must have once had larger ones. God may well have made some birds to fly, others to glide, and still others to do neither. Like Darwin's finches...some may have always had longer, and some always smaller beaks, all along (there are about 1200 varieties of these particular passerines) and possibly every length in between.

Nothing proves one grew longer beaks or those with long beaks developed shorter ones. It all depends on what story one imposes on the evidence. But I can see how when certain varieties blend or when certain alleles are reinforced between mates with certain propensities we get some variation.

For example the oldest Ostrich-like fossils, named Palaeotis (allegedly about 40 million years old) show very little if any keel change, and they are even way back then flightless birds with a smaller keel...now show me or direct me to kakapos with larger ones which would indicate the possibility that they became vestigial over time...
 
Last edited:
First, it sounded like YOU were saying that only flying birds have a vestigial keel.

I was pointing out that other than the vestigial keel of the kakapo, there is no keel on any but flying birds. You were arguing that hens were an exception, but you can see that hens do fly. And you now understand that a keeled sternum is required for flying birds. Modern birds need that extra attachment area for flight muscles.

Secondly, vestigial is a way EBs explain how some organ or features differ but this is also not shown to be true in most cases.

So far, every case I've seen. Show us an exception.

Therefore, if you show me earlier Kakapos (like via fossils) with full keels, then I can accept they may have become less over time.

Doesn't matter. The fact is, parrots, other than the kakapo have keels as other flying birds do. This is no different than fish deep in caves, having reduced or absent eyes. It's just natural selection and mutation.
 
I would say for these eyes were not necessary....God would not have created creatures un-adaptable to their environment...and yes birds meant to fly have them and those that were not do not...amazing and wonderful....

Now I showed YOU that ostriches were never meant to fly, and that they do not was not due to some PROCESS that made not fly...their keel has never been shown to have become vestigial

Now YOU show ME evidence that Kakapos had a larger keel (and flew) that became vestigial or PLEASE just be honest and admit there is no evidence only conjecture (and remember argumentum ad populum is a logic fallacy)
 
Last edited:
I would say for these eyes were not necessary....

And yet such fish normally have eyes, but no longer functional ones. What kind of "designer" would created fish in a cave with no light,and then outfit them with non-functional eyes? A Creator great enough to make a universe in which evolution happens would do this, but not the "space alien designer" of the IDers.

God would not have created creatures un-adaptable to their environment...

Populations. Creatures don't evolve. Populations do.

and yes birds meant to fly have them and those that were not do not...amazing and wonderful....

And inexplicable for creationism, but perfectly understandable if you accept it God's way.

Now I showed YOU that ostriches were never meant to fly

And yet they have vestigial wings. And an avian respiratory system which allows flight. They look exactly the way a bird would look if it evolved from flying to running.

and that they do not was not due to some PROCESS that made not fly...

That is an assumption. One that is at odds with the evidence.

their keel has never been shown to have become vestigial

They have no keel. It is completely gone. The sternum from which it would have formed, is retained, but the keel is completely absent.

Now YOU show ME evidence that Kakapos had a larger keel (and flew) that became vestigial

It, alone of all parrots, has a very small keel. It is large enough to let them flap and descend safely from large trees they climb, but they can't sustain flight. They do retain assymetrical flying feathers, which along with the keel and their flying relatives, shows that they did at one time, fly.

PLEASE just be honest and admit there is no evidence only conjecture

As you see, the evidence is quite clear. They are parrots who happened to find a land completely lacking in mammalian predators, and so had no need to fly. And over time, lost the ability to do much but controlled gliding. Genetic tests and anatomical data have shown it to be most closely related to the Kea, another New Zealand parrot, which still can fly. The vestigial keel and assymetric feathers show it to have descended from flying birds. Be honest; the evidence is unequivocal.

(and remember the argument from ignorance is a logic fallacy)
 
It is not what I do not know that brings me to my analysis but what I do know...even Waimanu shows us in the case of Penguins that even 60,000,000 years ago these were flightless birds. Now certainly there are diving birds which fly but these never did (at least according to the actual evidence we have)....why should people believe the stories they are told to re-interpret the actual proof in order to support the theory? Let the data speak for itself. These are not arguments from ignorance, you are simply wrong in that accusation and I know you actually know it. No! They are arguments from what we actually know....
 
It is not what I do not know that brings me to my analysis but what I do know...even Waimanu shows us in the case of Penguins that even 60,000,000 years ago these were flightless birds.

However, the anatomical and genetic data show them to have a common ancestor with flying birds, not ratites. And we know it works, because we can test genetic comparisons with organisms of known descent. And here's a penguin skeleton:
tour-of-the-penguin-skeleton.jpg

A prominently keeled sternum, as in birds that fly. I actually didn't know this until this morning, or rather never really noted the fact. It makes perfect sense. If penguins evolved from flying birds, it would make sense that they retain the flight-evolved keeled sternum, since they continue to use their wings for propulsion. So we have second exception to non-flying birds with keels. For a perfectly understandable reason. That is, understandable in terms of evolution. There is no design reason why a keel is more effective as a muscle attachment site than an enlarged furcula, as we see in Archaeopteryx, which is closely related to true birds.

We know Archaeopteryx flew, since it has assymetric flight feathers, pneumatized bones, and a light skeleton.

Now certainly there are diving birds which fly but these never did (at least according to the actual evidence we have)....

See above. You've been misled about that. Fossil transitionals are only one way we can check for common descent.

Let the data speak for itself.

Themselves. "Data" is plural. I sometimes use the wrong pronoun myself. And the genetic data show penguins evolved from flying birds, not ratites. Ratites evolved from flying birds as well, but from a different ancestor. Yes, genetic data indicate that as well.

These are not arguments from ignorance, you are simply wrong in that accusation and I know you actually know it.

For example, you were unaware of the genetic data, and that chickens can indeed fly, and other things. I am sure I am ignorant of things you know. But this is not one of them.
 
Last edited:
I looked for EBs that believe that all flightless birds evolved from flying ones and could not find any....do you have some suggestions?
 
F2.medium.gif


Phylogenetic analyses including crocodilian outgroups and two passerine birds (Corvus and Smithornis) strongly support the conventional position of the avian root and ratite polyphyly. Analyses were conducted by using all sequences that could be aligned between crocodilians and birds (4,668 bp). Support measures are unpartitioned ML bootstrap (Upper Left), MP bootstrap (Upper Right), unpartitioned Bayesian posterior probability (Lower Left), and partitioned Bayesian posterior probability (Lower Right). Branch lengths shown reflect the unpartitioned ML analysis. Branches for which all support measures were 100% or 1.0 are indicated with an asterisk; the branch with no support values had <50% bootstrap support and <0.5 Bayesian posterior probability in all analyses. MP and ML analyses conducted after Y coding produced similar results (not shown).


Separate analyses of individual loci show that 19 of 20 support paleognath monophyly in all analytical approaches (data not shown). The one that does not, BDNF, has a severe base compositional bias (see below). The great majority of single-locus trees (17 for ML and 15 for MP) support the ostrich as the sister group of all other paleognaths (Table 1). The probability of 15 or more of 20 independent gene trees agreeing by chance is extremely low (P = 2 × 10−9; binomial test using equiprobable trees null model). A number of loci that fail to support ratite polyphyly in individual analyses show hidden support (31, 32) in combined analyses (Table S3). Thus, the phylogenetic signal is widespread in the nuclear genome and any attempt to explain ratite polyphyly as an artifact must invoke a genome-wide systematic bias.
Phylogenomic evidence for multiple losses of flight in ratite birds PNAS vol. 105 no. 36 > John Harshman, 13462–13467


Notice that the various species of tinamous and gallus (chickens and related species) can fly, showing that flightlessness in ratites is paraphyletic.
 


The results were staggering, Baker says. The tinamous evolved within ratites, not as a separate lineage. "And the DNA says absolutely that moas and tinamous are closely related," says Baker, who first encountered moa fossils as a kid tromping through New Zealand caves.


Moa breastbones, toe bones, leg bones, and even the occasional skull rested in the mud, the final resting place for birds chased and slaughtered by humans about 12,000 years ago. Today, a cast of a Dinornis robustus skeleton towers over visitors to the Royal Ontario Museum where Baker is the senior curator of ornithology.


The Origins of Flightlessness


The tinamous' place on the evolutionary tree offers a glimpse into the origins of flightlessness. All ratites, including tinamous, probably trace their ancestry back to a flying relative, according to Baker. Tinamous retained their ability to fly, while the other lineages each lost flight independently. "It's very unlikely that tinamous would re-evolve flight from a flightless ancestor," says Baker.


The study upends an alternate, oft-cited story. Scientists speculated that the breakup of the supercontinent Pangaea's southern section split up a population of flightless ratite ancestors. Each landlocked group evolved in place, creating the awe-inspiring and quirky birds known today: ostriches in Africa, rheas in South America, emus and cassowaries in Australia, the extinct elephant bird in Madagascar, and kiwis and extinct moas in New Zealand. The story conveniently explained how flightless birds dispersed across the oceans. "Growing up, we were told that moas and kiwis were sisters," Baker says.


But now it looks like each group invaded New Zealand separately. The new evidence doesn't align with the timing of Pangaea's split more than 100 million years ago. The ratites evolved into separate lineages between 90 and 70 million years ago, and the tinamous and moas diverged about 45 million years ago, according to the study. "We can't rule out that the birds flew to each continent," says Baker, and then independently evolved their flightless features.


The debate about these birds has been contentious, Baker says. "But I think this study will put it to rest."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...tless-birds-ostriches-moas-evolution-science/
 

The results were staggering, Baker says. The tinamous evolved within ratites, not as a separate lineage. "And the DNA says absolutely that moas and tinamous are closely related," says Baker, who first encountered moa fossils as a kid tromping through New Zealand caves.


Moa breastbones, toe bones, leg bones, and even the occasional skull rested in the mud, the final resting place for birds chased and slaughtered by humans about 12,000 years ago. Today, a cast of a Dinornis robustus skeleton towers over visitors to the Royal Ontario Museum where Baker is the senior curator of ornithology.


The Origins of Flightlessness


The tinamous' place on the evolutionary tree offers a glimpse into the origins of flightlessness. All ratites, including tinamous, probably trace their ancestry back to a flying relative, according to Baker. Tinamous retained their ability to fly, while the other lineages each lost flight independently. "It's very unlikely that tinamous would re-evolve flight from a flightless ancestor," says Baker.


The study upends an alternate, oft-cited story. Scientists speculated that the breakup of the supercontinent Pangaea's southern section split up a population of flightless ratite ancestors. Each landlocked group evolved in place, creating the awe-inspiring and quirky birds known today: ostriches in Africa, rheas in South America, emus and cassowaries in Australia, the extinct elephant bird in Madagascar, and kiwis and extinct moas in New Zealand. The story conveniently explained how flightless birds dispersed across the oceans. "Growing up, we were told that moas and kiwis were sisters," Baker says.


But now it looks like each group invaded New Zealand separately. The new evidence doesn't align with the timing of Pangaea's split more than 100 million years ago. The ratites evolved into separate lineages between 90 and 70 million years ago, and the tinamous and moas diverged about 45 million years ago, according to the study. "We can't rule out that the birds flew to each continent," says Baker, and then independently evolved their flightless features.


The debate about these birds has been contentious, Baker says. "But I think this study will put it to rest."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...tless-birds-ostriches-moas-evolution-science/

That all might seem impressive to the world but in the light of Gods word its impossible..

I Corinthians 15:38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.

39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

tob
 
Back
Top