[_ Old Earth _] The Non-Evolution of Flight Instincts

[Asyncritus]

Human experience shows us that flying is a very complicated thing. Many killed themselves before Kitty Hawk, and probably after, attempting to fly.

Since then, many, many more have died while experimenting with the various kinds of flying machines, and in the attempt to improve them.

Even when the machines had improved from the earliest prototypes, there were still many problems to overcome.

One of the best known ones produced the wing flap. Air flowing smoothly over the surface of the wing produced dangerous effects;

As air passes over the wing, in flight, turbulence develops.

And apparently, this turbulence caused many crashes. They didn't know what to do, until they spotted the alula (or "bastard wing") on the wings of birds. The function of this part of the wing, was exactly that - to break up the smooth airflow, and eliminate the menacing turbulence.

Which is merely a digression.

But it is perfectly obvious to anyone, the flyng is a highly advanced skill WHICH MUST BE LEARNED. It is futile to put a mechanic into a fighter plane and say 'here, go fly'. Death and disaster will surely follow.

Non-Evolution of Flight In Birds

From the above, since birds fly with the greatest of ease, it is clear that they have mastered the art of flying.

And please note, flying and gliding are two completely different things.

So the question which evolution theory must answer is: How did the birds learn to fly?

One favourite canard, is to say that they got feathers (in anticipation of the fact that they, as reptiles, would one day take to the air. A clear nonsense, but we'll let that pass). Then they learned how to glide, and from thence, learned to fly.

That is complete nonsense, for this simple reason:

The Law of Asynctropy (www.howdoesinstinctevolve.com for the full story) says:

[FONT=&quot]Every one of the functions of life is dependent on THE EXISTENCE OF A POWERING INSTINCT. If the powering instinct is not present or available, THEN THE FUNCTION ITSELF IS ABSENT OR IMPOSSIBLE even if the necessary organ is present.[/FONT]

This is nothing more than applied common sense.

Let's give the first reptile-bird everything required for flight: wings, feathers, new respiratory system, feet, tail feathers, beak, eyes, no diaphragm, the highest metabolic rate in the animal kingdom, warm-bloodedness etc etc.

But in it's mind, the new bird is still a reptile, which has never flown.

IT DOESN'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH THE NEW EQUIPMENT.

The powering instincts (and there are many) are all absent.

Can the new bird fly?

No. Like the mechanic placed in the cockpit of the fighter plane, it hasn't a clue what to do.

So what happens? Ask the pre-Kitty Hawk people who died.

Death and destruction.

End of evolution of birds.

Note that NO LEARNING AND PASSING OF LEARNED INFORMATION DOWN TO OFFSPRING is possible. That is Lamarckism, which isn't mentioned in decent biological company nowadays.

Those flight instincts which are so absolutely vital to successful flight, MUST HAVE BEEN IMPLANTED in the first birds.

The birds themselves (being evolving reptiles) had no need of, and had not the wit or intelligence to devise those instincts. And they certainly could not have placed them in their own genomes.

But they are there!

They MUST be - because every generation of birds since the first ones, have been able to fly.

Evolution has no answer to this fatal question, or to any of the others detailed here: www.howdoesinstinctevolve.com For a full treatment of the subject, you really should read this book, and give the information to your children and professors.

It is the end of evolution as a valid scientific theory. It simply cannot answer questions about the immaterial, the instincts powering animal and plant behaviour: life as a whole, in fact.

And MUST, therefore, be discarded, in view of this monumental failure.

 

[spartakis]

Most people don't understand how complex feathers are.
There are two assumptions of how power flight evolved. One is jumping to get bugs the other is jumping in trees. I have studied feathers and powered flight and it seems truly funny people believe this evolved. Well only thing people have are assumption and they will argue that they are facts. I would like to add more to this put don't have time now going out with the family for a busy day, maybe latter. Good topic and one of the many problems of evolution.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Most people don't understand how complex feathers are.
There are two assumptions of how power flight evolved. One is jumping to get bugs the other is jumping in trees. I have studied feathers and powered flight and it seems truly funny people believe this evolved. Well only thing people have are assumption and they will argue that they are facts. I would like to add more to this put don't have time now going out with the family for a busy day, maybe latter. Good topic and one of the many problems of evolution.

Those are not the current ideas on the evolution of flight. Especially since both the wishbone that gives the motion of flight was present in many dinosaurs before the divergence of birds. Feathers were also present in in some dinosaurs before the divergence of birds.

 

[Milk-Drops]

I like how this thread dosen't mention any of the ancestral birds and instead invents a modern bird, claims that it just came into being, and then claims the bird wouldn't have the instinct. A lot of claims that reflects nothing of what Biologists are actually saying.

To bad the theory of evolution claims no such thing and with the discoveries of Archeopteryx, micro Raptor, etc, its shown that this article is nothing but a farce.

 

[Barbarian]

From the above, since birds fly with the greatest of ease,

Chickens don't seem to be very good at it. But they are probably better than Archaeopteryx was. Archie lacked a strong breastbone found in all modern birds, and was not very well set to fly. Probably could fly or at least glide and flap a little.

it is clear that they have mastered the art of flying.

Some have evolved farther along than others, um?

And please note, flying and gliding are two completely different things.

Let's see... both use wings. Both involve moving through the air in a somewhat controlled fashion. The birds that do glide instead of fly do flap to increase the glide ratio. Technically, what is the difference?

So the question which evolution theory must answer is: How did the birds learn to fly?

Non-flying birds are noted to use their wings to manuever or to jump higher. Even if they can't sustain flight, the forces involved in flapping do increase speed and distance.

After three years, when the ostriches were full-grown, thescientists video-recorded them as they raced down nearly 1,000-foot (300-meter)stretches outdoors. They found the ostriches used wings as sophisticatedair-rudders for rapid braking, turning and zigzag maneuvers. Experiments thatplaced ostrich feathers in streams of air showed they could indeed provide lift,which would come in handy for animals that did fly.
http://www.livescience.com/6657-ostrich-wings-explain-mystery-flightless-dinosaurs.html

One favourite canard, is to say that they got feathers (in anticipation of the fact that they, as reptiles, would one day take to the air.

I've heard creationists say things like that, but never a scientist. How silly. Trying to "duck" the question, it seems. (Pun intended; look up "canard")

The Law of Asynctropy (www.howdoesinstinctevolve.com for the full story) says:
Every one of the functions of life is dependent on THE EXISTENCE OF A POWERING INSTINCT.

As you know, several things you presented as "powering instinct" turned out to be merely chemical reactions. So that's out.

Let's give the first reptile-bird everything required for flight: wings, feathers, new respiratory system, feet, tail feathers, beak, eyes, no diaphragm, the highest metabolic rate in the animal kingdom, warm-bloodedness etc etc.

As you should know, all of these things were already possessed by dinosaurs.

But in it's mind, the new bird is still a reptile, which has never flown.

Reptiles had already acheived flight, too.

IT DOESN'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH THE NEW EQUIPMENT.

As you just learned, flying was an elaboration of what the organism had been already doing. Flight uses the same stuff that cursorial feathered dinosaurs had been using for a long time.

The powering instincts (and there are many) are all absent.

Again, the problem is bad assumptions.

It is the end of evolution as a valid scientific theory. It simply cannot answer questions about the immaterial, the instincts powering animal and plant behaviour: life as a whole, in fact.

Nice try. But there is no magic bullet against reality.

 

[Asyncritus]

Those are not the current ideas on the evolution of flight. Especially since both the wishbone that gives the motion of flight was present in many dinosaurs before the divergence of birds. Feathers were also present in in some dinosaurs before the divergence of birds.

They flew with their scales, one assumes? :toofunny

But let's assume they did manage that wonderful feat: fly with their scales or whatever.

You have a new problem.

Dinosaur (can't fly) ------X------dinosaur (can fly)

Since, as I have pointed out, flight is a pretty complex piece of behaviour, where did THE DINOSAURS obtain that piece of information? That flight manual if you like.

 

[Asyncritus]

I like how this thread dosen't mention any of the ancestral birds and instead invents a modern bird, claims that it just came into being, and then claims the bird wouldn't have the instinct. A lot of claims that reflects nothing of what Biologists are actually saying.

To bad the theory of evolution claims no such thing and with the discoveries of Archeopteryx, micro Raptor, etc, its shown that this article is nothing but a farce.

Remember, ACQUIRED INFORMATION CANNOT BE INHERITED.

We'll do this with pure intelligence, and the answers to a few questions.

1 There once was a reptile which couldn't fly.
Can we agree on that?

2 Then (however you wish to describe it), there was the first reptile which could fly.
Can we agree on that?

3 We'll assume that there were some intermediate stages.
Can we agree on that?

So representing this diagrammatically, we have:

R (can't fly) ----->R2--->R3--->Rn ----> R5(can fly)

Now somewhere in there R2 --> Rn, the flight instinct appeared, and R5 CAN FLY.

Can we agree on that?

If you do agree, then where did the flight instincts come from?

Remember, if R2 could glide, and had feathers, that is not the same as flying. (Try googling flight and gliding, and you'll see the differences).

Also, the question is, if R2 was successful, how did it pass the information down to R3 and thence to R5?

Remember, ACQUIRED INFORMATION CANNOT BE INHERITED.

It had to inborn, innate, inherited.

 

[Barbarian]

Meatballsub writes:
Those are not the current ideas on the evolution of flight. Especially since both the wishbone that gives the motion of flight was present in many dinosaurs before the divergence of birds. Feathers were also present in in some dinosaurs before the divergence of birds.

Async wries:

They flew with their scales, one assumes?

Still do. Birds retain dinosaur scales.

But let's assume they did manage that wonderful feat: fly with their scales or whatever.

Feathers. Feathers preceded flight in dinosaurs.

You have a new problem.

Dinosaur (can't fly) ------X------dinosaur (can fly)

Evidence indicates that it was lots of xs. Slow transition.

Since, as I have pointed out, flight is a pretty complex piece of behaviour, where dit THE DINOSAURS obtain that piece of information?

Since flight movements in birds are the same as running movements of bipeds it's just an elaboration of something already there. Ostriches still show that. They use wings in flapping movements to aid in running.

 

[Asyncritus]

Meatballsub writes:
Those are not the current ideas on the evolution of flight. Especially since both the wishbone that gives the motion of flight was present in many dinosaurs before the divergence of birds. Feathers were also present in in some dinosaurs before the divergence of birds.

Still do. Birds retain dinosaur scales.

So do fish. And they aren't flying anywhere. Apart from flying fish! They in the bird ancestry someplace too? (BTW the flying fish GLIDE. They don't FLY).

Feathers. Feathers preceded flight in dinosaurs.

Why?

Evidence indicates that it was lots of xs. Slow transition.

Evidence indicates nothing of the sort. They could either fly or not. And there's no halfway house. Gliding is not an option in this discussion.

Since flight movements in birds are the same as running movements of bipeds it's just an elaboration of something already there.

So if I and my descendants practice long distance running for n generations, we too will fly! Come Barbarian, not even you could stomach this rubbish!

The shoulder joints of reptiles are designed to move backwards and forwards. In birds, the flapping movement is always at right angles to the forward/backward plane. That would equate to us running with legs moving in and out to and from the splits position. A trifle difficult, I would have said.

Ostriches still show that. They use wings in flapping movements to aid in running.

Ostriches don't fly. They are therefore irrelevant to the discussion.

But to return to the main point I am making.

1 Do you agree that flying is a complex behaviour?

2 Where did the instinct enter the genome and why did it do so?

You are forced to admit Lamarckism into your reconstruction, thus:

Reptile A learns to take off, let's say.

In order for flight to become a distinguishing feature of it's descendants, that LEARNED INFORMATION must enter the genome.

But LEARNED BEHAVIOUR cannot be inherited.

Therefore the next generation is back to square one, and has to go through the whole thing again, and again and again.......

No evolution is possible. The theory must be discarded.

Do you agree?

 

[Asyncritus]

Chickens don't seem to be very good at it. But they are probably better than Archaeopteryx was. Archie lacked a strong breastbone found in all modern birds, and was not very well set to fly. Probably could fly or at least glide and flap a little.

All flying birds can glide - from the albatross to the humming bird.

But gliding, as I repeat, is not flying. They are 2 separate and distinct entities. So if a dinosaur had feathers - and feathers do not constitute a wing, I might point out - and ran to the edge of a cliff and leapt off (for what reason I don't know), or even fell off, then it was dead.

End of evolution.

If it had wings (and why it would have them is another question), then it would still break its neck.

Why? Because it didnt know what to do with them.

Imagine jumping out of a plane with a parachute strapped to your back. If you had no training, you would be dead - because you didn't know what to do with it, and would probably land headfirst in a rockpile. Dead.

Same thing here.

But the birds we see, all fly. So they DID have that training - and before you start mithering about them copying their parents, remember, we're talking about the FIRST bird that ever flew.

Some have evolved farther along than others, um?

Assertion without proof. Assuming the case.

Let's see... both use wings. Both involve moving through the air in a somewhat controlled fashion. The birds that do glide instead of fly do flap to increase the glide ratio. Technically, what is the difference?

Simple. Look at a glider (or an aeroplane) and look at a bird flying. See any differences? I bet you do.

Non-flying birds are noted to use their wings to manuever or to jump higher. Even if they can't sustain flight, the forces involved in flapping do increase speed and distance.

After three years, when the ostriches were full-grown, thescientists video-recorded them as they raced down nearly 1,000-foot (300-meter)stretches outdoors. They found the ostriches used wings as sophisticatedair-rudders for rapid braking, turning and zigzag maneuvers. Experiments thatplaced ostrich feathers in streams of air showed they could indeed provide lift,which would come in handy for animals that did fly.
http://www.livescience.com/6657-ostrich-wings-explain-mystery-flightless-dinosaurs.html

Since we are discussing the origin of flight, flightless birds are an irrelevance - but there aren't many of them either.

I've heard creationists say things like that, but never a scientist. How silly. Trying to "duck" the question, it seems. (Pun intended; look up "canard")

Glad you got the joke. Thought it might be a little advanced humour for you, but it's OK, it seems.

But that is precisely what you are saying, when you claim that some dinosaurs had feathers.

Why did they 'evolve' feathers? Answer so they could fly, presumably. Not for warmth, by any means - because a. they are cold-blooded anyway, and b. down feathers (the insulating type) are nothing at all like flight feathers.

Imagine a baby chick trying to fly!

One favourite canard, is to say that they got feathers (in anticipation of the fact that they, as reptiles, would one day take to the air.

As you know, several things you presented as "powering instinct" turned out to be merely chemical reactions. So that's out.

No, sorry. That's your over-optimistic estimate. Flight is not 'merely chemical reactions'. If it is, show us why you think so. And while you're at it, remember the 7,800 mile flight of the Capistrano swallows. Lot's of chemical reactions there!

As you should know, all of these things were already possessed by dinosaurs.

What tosh. Sorry I can't be more impolite than that. Free would have me. So use your imagination and fill in the blanks.

Reptiles had already acheived flight, too.

Snigger.:toofunny

As you just learned

You're annoying me again. Maybe I'll fill in some of those blanks myself.

flying was an elaboration of what the organism had been already doing.Flight uses the same stuff that cursorial feathered dinosaurs had been using for a long time.

You're claiming that flying is merely an extension of walking, jumping and running. Maybe you should try running to the edge of a high cliff and jumping off. Let me know how far you flew. 7,800 miles perhaps?

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Chickens don't seem to be very good at it. But they are probably better than Archaeopteryx was. Archie lacked a strong breastbone found in all modern birds, and was not very well set to fly. Probably could fly or at least glide and flap a little.

All flying birds can glide - from the albatross to the humming bird.

In the sense that a brick can glide. Hummingbirds, if they stop flapping, lose altitude rapidly.

With the exception of Hummingbirds, all birds glide to some extent when flying. As a rule, the smaller the bird, the shorter the distance it can glide and the faster it sinks. For example, a domestic pigeon descends about 33 feet during a glide of approximately 295 feet; a Golden Eagle can glide 558 feet with the same loss in height.
http://www.paulnoll.com/Oregon/Birds/flight-gliding.html

It's an issue of wing loading. Same reason that many fighter planes glide like a brick.

But gliding, as I repeat, is not flying. They are 2 separate and distinct entities. So if a dinosaur had feathers - and feathers do not constitute a wing, I might point out

Pinnate feathers on limb constitute a wing. And yes, dinosaurs had them...

(Reuters) - Chinese researchers have unearthed the fossil of a bird-like dinosaur with four wings in northeastern China, which they suggest is a missing link in dinosaurs' evolution into birds.

In a paper in the journal Nature, they said they found the well-preserved fossil of the "Anchiornis huxleyi," which roamed the earth some 160 million years ago, in a geological formation in China's northeastern Liaoning province.

About the size of a chicken, the fossil has a total body length of less than 50cm (20 inches) and a skull about 6cm long, lead researcher Xing Xu at the Chinese Academy of Science in Beijing told Reuters in an email.

"This finding suggests that birds are likely to be descended from a kind of small-sized four-winged dinosaur about 160 million years ago," Xu said.

"It is a link between more typical theropods (dinosaurs which moved around with two rear limbs) and birds. It lived around a time period ... that we expected for birds' ancestor."

In a statement, the researchers said: "Long feathers cover the arms and tail, but also the feet, suggesting that a four-winged stage may have existed in the transition to birds."

The transition from dinosaurs to birds is still poorly understood because of the lack of well-preserved fossils, and many scientists say bird-like dinosaurs appear too late in the fossil record to be the true ancestors of birds.

The Chinese researchers believe the fossil is the oldest bird-like dinosaur reported so far, and older than Archaeopteryx, the earliest known bird.

"The presence of such a species at this time in the fossil record effectively disputes the argument that bird-like dinosaurs appeared too late to be the ancestors of birds," they wrote.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/28/us-china-dinosaur-wings-idUSTRE58R1ST20090928

- and ran to the edge of a cliff and leapt off (for what reason I don't know), or even fell off, then it was dead.

More likely, they used them they way ostriches and other flightless birds do; as means of maneuvering on the ground, or to make longer jumps or land more softly.

Same motions as flight. Which is a pretty good clue in itself.

Since we are discussing the origin of flight, flightless birds are an irrelevance

And now you know better.

One favourite canard, is to say that they got feathers (in anticipation of the fact that they, as reptiles, would one day take to the air.

I've heard creationists say things like that, but never a scientist. How silly. Trying to "duck" the question, it seems. (Pun intended; look up "canard")

But that is precisely what you are saying, when you claim that some dinosaurs had feathers.

Nope. If your argument depends on misrepresenting what I said, that's a pretty good indicator that your argument is in trouble.

Why did they 'evolve' feathers? Answer so they could fly, presumably.

Wrong. The primary use of feathers in birds is for warmth and display. Many of them can also fly, but that's not the first use. Dinosaurs had feathers long before any of them could fly.

Not for warmth, by any means - because a. they are cold-blooded anyway,

Turns out that the theropods were warm-blooded.

and b. down feathers (the insulating type) are nothing at all like flight feathers.

Turns out they are. Would you like to see the evidence for that?

Barbarian chuckles:
As you know, several things you presented as "powering instinct" turned out to be merely chemical reactions. So that's out.

No, sorry. That's your over-optimistic estimate.

You told us that phototropism in plants and the interactions of sperm and eggs are instinct. But as yoiu learned, they are chemically mediated. And what we haven't yet learned, isn't evidence for anything.

Barbarian observes:
As you should know, all of these things were already possessed by dinosaurs.

What tosh.

It's demonstrably true. You already learned that the avian lung, feathers, and much more evolved first in dinosaurs.

Barbarian observes:
Reptiles had already acheived flight, too.

Snigger.

I thought you knew. Sorry.

You're annoying me again.

("Moderators, the Barbarian is resorting to evidence, again!")

Barbarian observes:
flying was an elaboration of what the organism had been already doing.Flight uses the same stuff that cursorial feathered dinosaurs had been using for a long time.

You're claiming that flying is merely an extension of walking, jumping and running.

No. The motions of flying are, however. The motions of salamanders walking are the same as those of fish swimming. But onlyfish with limbs could use that motion to walk.

Maybe you should try running to the edge of a high cliff and jumping off.

See above.

 

[Milk-Drops]

They flew with their scales, one assumes? :toofunny

Barbarian has already pointed out the group called Pterosaurs. I think your laughing smileys are a great touch especially since most kindergardeners in my generation new of pterosaurs.

But let's assume they did manage that wonderful feat: fly with their scales or whatever.

Barbarian has already pointed out to you that scales are still present in modern birds. And Feathers predated flight.

You have a new problem.

Dinosaur (can't fly) ------X------dinosaur (can fly)

I don't see a problem since we have plenty of dinosaurs that can flay, and plenty of dinosaurs with all the mechanisms of flight that couldn't or had limited flight. And we have this great little dinosaur named Micro Raptor. Seems like our problem is solved. We also have plenty of dinosaurs that had feathers and a wishbone, but didn't fly.

Since, as I have pointed out, flight is a pretty complex piece of behaviour, where did THE DINOSAURS obtain that piece of information? That flight manual if you like.

Probably the same way we as humans figure out how to breath, swallow, open our eyes. etc. Our bodies figure it out. Our circulatory system is pretty complex, yet it works.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Remember, ACQUIRED INFORMATION CANNOT BE INHERITED.

You haven't explained why this can't happen. Still waiting for you to present your work. Instead of just linking or copy pasting other people's articles.

We'll do this with pure intelligence, and the answers to a few questions.

You mean wisdom, not intelligence? Your intelligence is your ability to learn new material. Your wisdom is your application of acquired knowledge.

1 There once was a reptile which couldn't fly.
Can we agree on that?

There are plenty of reptiles that can't fly. Like skinks. Those are cute little guys.

2 Then (however you wish to describe it), there was the first reptile which could fly.
Can we agree on that?

Yeah, I know of plenty of pterosaurs.

3 We'll assume that there were some intermediate stages.
Can we agree on that?

Yep, there are several different species of pterosaurs and raptors. Some older, some newer, and several avians that spread off today.

So representing this diagrammatically, we have:

R (can't fly) ----->R2--->R3--->Rn ----> R5(can fly)

Now somewhere in there R2 --> Rn, the flight instinct appeared, and R5 CAN FLY.

Can we agree on that?

Yep, just like how us humans learn how to swim. Our bodies are able, but until we are in a situation where the movements are useful. we tend to not quite get it.

If you do agree, then where did the flight instincts come from?

I don't know for sure, but I can say that they figured it out at some point. Especially since we do have flying birds today and many ancestral birds that fly and museums full of pterosaurs.

Remember, if R2 could glide, and had feathers, that is not the same as flying. (Try googling flight and gliding, and you'll see the differences).

Now here is where you are going into pure speculation. Do you have a dinosaur we can look at? If you don't, then how do you know it can glide? Why is gliding an R2 trait? Why wouldn't any other trait be expressed in R2? You should know that unless you present something, this is useless right?

Also, the question is, if R2 was successful, how did it pass the information down to R3 and thence to R5?

If R2 was successful, then R2 would probably be able to have greater chances of mating. So the genes that gave the body mechanics and the know how to do so would pass on.

Remember, ACQUIRED INFORMATION CANNOT BE INHERITED.

It had to inborn, innate, inherited.

Remember, making claims without anything to back up your claims that something is impossible without demonstrating how is nonsense.

 

[cupid dave]

ACQUIRED INFORMATION CANNOT BE INHERITED.
Now somewhere in there R2 --> Rn, the flight instinct appeared, and R5 CAN FLY.

... then where did the flight instincts come from?


It had to inborn, innate, inherited.

So this logic suggests that "ACQUIRED INFORMATION CAN BE INHERITED."

This is a powerful insight and one that suddenly raises the issue of Directed Evolution.

In fact, the very existence of ANY instinct supports the hypothesis that learning can become a part of the Unconscious mind that is generated genetically and independent of our later Conscious experience.
It may even be that the Collective Unconscious mind that is the sum of all the living peoples Unconscious informs the next generations by some yet to be explained mechanism of communication between people.

Is the Collective Unconscious mind the Christ or third eye watching over us sheep?

 

[cupid dave]

Dinosaur (can't fly) ------X------dinosaur (can fly)

Since, as I have pointed out, flight is a pretty complex piece of behaviour, where did THE DINOSAURS obtain that piece of information? That flight manual if you like.

The Collective Unconscious mind inside the heads of the dinosaurs all together communicated the information to the new borns:



CONSIDER THIS OBSERVABLE FEAT WHICH SUGGESTS THE HYPOTHESIS OF COLLECTIVE UNCONSCIOUS COMMUNITICATIONS:



There'sa marvellous little bird called the Pacific Golden Plover (Pluvialis fulva).



It does this fantastic thing, which evolutioncannot even BEGIN to account for, and provides further proof if it were needed,that the theory should be abandoned.



The story begins in Alaska, where the birdsbreed. They lay their eggs, which hatch out normally, and the parents stay withthem till they are reasonably able to take care of themselves.



Then the impossible happens.



The parents fly away, leaving them behind. Butthat's not the amazing part.



The parents now embark upon a 2,800 MILEJOURNEY to Hawaii,

ACROSS THE TRACKLESS PACIFIC OCEAN, a journeytaking about 88 hours of NON-STOP flying time.



In the process, they lose about half theirbody weight.



Now consider HOW these birds could possiblynavigate their way from Alaska to Hawaii. Could you? Without instruments andmaps?



There's nothing to guide them - not the stars,because they fly by day and by night.



If they're one degree off course, they'll endbelly up in the Pacific Ocean. But even if headwinds/ sidewinds blow them offcourse, they still make it.



They summer there, and then, head back toAlaska, across another 2,800 mile journey, where they breed again.



There,isn't that wonderful?



But hold on. The young, who were hatched inAlaska, FOLLOW THEIR PARENTS TO HAWAII a couple of weeks LATER, without aguide, without ever having seen Hawaii !!!



Any mistake in navigation, and they too wouldbe belly up in the Pacific Ocean.



This is the work of reputable observers, and awell-known phenomenon. There is no guesswork here, no hypothesising, no theorising.Just fact.

 

[Asyncritus]

Barbarian observes:
Chickens don't seem to be very good at it. But they are probably better than Archaeopteryx was. Archie lacked a strong breastbone found in all modern birds, and was not very well set to fly. Probably could fly or at least glide and flap a little.

In the sense that a brick can glide. Hummingbirds, if they stop flapping, lose altitude rapidly.

Good. We agree that gliding cannot be a precursor of flight. So to move on:

With the exception of Hummingbirds, all birds glide to some extent when flying. As a rule, the smaller the bird, the shorter the distance it can glide and the faster it sinks. For example, a domestic pigeon descends about 33 feet during a glide of approximately 295 feet; a Golden Eagle can glide 558 feet with the same loss in height.
http://www.paulnoll.com/Oregon/Birds/flight-gliding.html

It's an issue of wing loading. Same reason that many fighter planes glide like a brick.

Good, good. We agree.

But a great deal hangs on these 'dinosaurs' (which cannot be reptiles since they are 'warm-blooded' as you say) being able to glide, and then proceed to fly properly.

If gliding like bricks was NOT the precursor of flight, then you have no case for the evolution of flight by dinosaurs.

Because the powering instincts are simply absent.

And the anatomy is all wrong too. As I pointed out, the structure of a flying shoulder joint is entirely different to that of a gliding one. Up and down lateral movements cannot evolve, without major drastic evolutionary surgery, from a joint that only permits forward-backward movement. Not without a major creative input from God.

Pinnate feathers on limb constitute a wing. And yes, dinosaurs had them...

(Reuters) - Chinese researchers have unearthed the fossil of a bird-like dinosaur with four wings in northeastern China, which they suggest is a missing link in dinosaurs' evolution into birds.

You have just got to be joking. FOUR wings???? Come Barbarian, no dinosaur ever had 6 legs. Four to fly and 2 to walk! :toofunny

And did you miss this bit, which puts a huge dent in your certainty

The transition from dinosaurs to birds is still poorly understood because of the lack of well-preserved fossils, and many scientists say bird-like dinosaurs appear too late in the fossil record to be the true ancestors of birds.

In other words, tough luck.

And doesn't this fossil make you suspect that the same guys who faked the Archaeoraptor fossils hadn't gone into retirement just yet?

More likely, they used them they way ostriches and other flightless birds do; as means of maneuvering on the ground, or to make longer jumps or land more softly.

Same motions as flight. Which is a pretty good clue in itself.

Since these things are flightless, then they have no part to play in this discussion.

Since we are discussing the origin of flight, flightless birds are an irrelevance

And now you know better.

That is pure nonsense, and you know it.

Why did they 'evolve' feathers? Answer so they could fly, presumably.

Wrong. The primary use of feathers in birds is for warmth and display. Many of them can also fly, but that's not the first use. Dinosaurs had feathers long before any of them could fly.

Flight
Feathers, of course, play a crucial role in flight. Feathers help create the airfoil shape to the wing that provides lift. They also support the overall shape of the wing and its flight characteristics.

Hummingbirds are especially adept at controlling their feathers, and thus the shape of the wing, as they hover while feeding.

The crucial question is, can a bird fly without feathers? Unlikely. I don’t know of any, but doubtless you can dredge up a few.[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Do feathers function to enable flight? In the case of bird flight, the answer is fairly obvious. Birds with feathers are able to fly and birds without feathers would not be able to.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/misconcep_06

Not for warmth, by any means - because a. they are cold-blooded anyway,

Turns out that the theropods were warm-blooded.

Wrong again.

You are again in very dangerous waters.

The biochemistry and physiology of warm and cold blooded animals is quite different.

Assuming that the ancestors of the theropods were cold-blooded reptiles, then there is no amount of ‘mutations and natural selection’ that could change cold to warm. That is more evolutionary wishful thinking.

Since the internal mechanisms of extinct creatures are unknowable, most discussion focuses on homeothermy and tachymetabolism.

wiki

Alan Feduccia, an expert on birds and their evolution, has concluded that “there has never been, nor is there now, any evidence that dinosaurs were endothermic.”4 Feduccia says that despite the lack of evidence “many authors have tried to make specimens conform to the hot-blooded theropod dogma.”

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/did-dinosaurs-turn-into-birds

Your certainty is again uncertain.

and b. down feathers (the insulating type) are nothing at all like flight feathers.

Turns out they are. Would you like to see the evidence for that?

Yes. But go here first: http://www.cockatielcottage.net/molting.html

Barbarian chuckles:
As you know, several things you presented as "powering instinct" turned out to be merely chemical reactions. So that's out.

No, sorry. That's your over-optimistic estimate.

You told us that phototropism in plants and the interactions of sperm and eggs are instinct. But as yoiu learned, they are chemically mediated. And what we haven't yet learned, isn't evidence for anything.

[FONT=&quot]You were shown that your chronic inability to distinguish between ‘how’ and ‘why’ is a major impairment to your ability to discuss any of these subjects properly. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
You showed ’how’ in response to the question ‘why’, and guess what? You haven’t learned a thing since, and keep making this quite foolish claim. Now wise up, man.

Barbarian observes:
As you should know, all of these things were already possessed by dinosaurs.

What tosh.

It's demonstrably true. You already learned that the avian lung, feathers, and much more evolved first in dinosaurs.

Free, I am going to become quite abusive if this man doesn’t stop with this idiotic ‘you learned’ business. He is persisting in this debating tactic of deliberate condescension, and I ask you once again to say something quite fierce about it, or I’ll be compelled to take the law into my own hands.

In any case the avian lung alone stops this evolutionary nonsense in its tracks. No amount of wishful thinking can change a two-way respiratory system into a one way system.

Here are the two fatal diagrams:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/articles/nab/lung-bird.jpg

[FONT=&quot]http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/articles/nab/lung-reptile.jpg[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

If theropod dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds, one might expect to find evidence of an avian-type lung in such dinosaurs. While fossils generally do not preserve soft tissue such as lungs, a very fine theropod dinosaur fossil (Sinosauropteryx) has been found in which the outline of the visceral cavity has been well preserved. The evidence clearly indicates that this theropod had lung and respiratory mechanics similar to that of a crocodile—not a bird.6

Specifically, there was evidence of a diaphragm-like muscle separating the lung from the liver, much as you see in modern crocodiles (birds lack a diaphragm). These observations suggest that this theropod was similar to an ectothermic reptile, not an endothermic bird.

[FONT=&quot]

Barbarian observes:
Reptiles had already acheived flight, too.

[/FONT]

You got me. Senior moment. My apologies.

Barbarian observes:
flying was an elaboration of what the organism had been already doing. Flight uses the same stuff that cursorial feathered dinosaurs had been using for a long time.

You're claiming that flying is merely an extension of walking, jumping and running.

No. The motions of flying are, however.

And that proves what?

The motions of salamanders walking are the same as those of fish swimming. But only fish with limbs could use that motion to walk.

Irrelevant.

But maybe you should try running to the edge of a high cliff and jumping off. The faster you hit the ground while waving your forelimbs laterally up and down, the quicker your wings will evolve.

Good luck, and happy landing.

 

[Barbarian]

But a great deal hangs on these 'dinosaurs' (which cannot be reptiles since they are 'warm-blooded' as you say)

By definition, they are reptiles. Aminiotes with multiple bones in their lower jaws. They just have a few transitional features.

being able to glide, and then proceed to fly properly.

Wrong. The evidence shows that wings were first used for maneuvering during running.

If gliding like bricks was NOT the precursor of flight, then you have no case for the evolution of flight by dinosaurs.

You've just been blindsided by the evidence again.

Because the powering instincts are simply absent.

As you just learned, the instincts were already there.

And the anatomy is all wrong too. As I pointed out, the structure of a flying shoulder joint is entirely different to that of a gliding one.

But the shoulder joints of those running dinosaurs were fine for flying...

When describing specimens originally referred to the distinct species Cryptovolans pauli, paleontologist Stephen Czerkas argued that Microraptor may have been able to fly better than Archaeopteryx, noting the fused sternum and asymmetrical feathers of Microraptor, as well as features of the shoulder girdle that indicate flying ability closer to modern birds than to Archaeopteryx.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microraptor

Up and down lateral movements cannot evolve, without major drastic evolutionary surgery, from a joint that only permits forward-backward movement.

I can see you weren't expecting this.

Not without a major creative input from God.

Indeed. He used mutation and natural selection.

Pinnate feathers on limb constitute a wing. And yes, dinosaurs had them...

(Reuters) - Chinese researchers have unearthed the fossil of a bird-like dinosaur with four wings in northeastern China, which they suggest is a missing link in dinosaurs' evolution into birds.
You have just got to be joking. FOUR wings???? Come Barbarian, no dinosaur ever had 6 legs. Four to fly and 2 to walk!

And did you miss this bit, which puts a huge dent in your certainty

The transition from dinosaurs to birds is still poorly understood because of the lack of well-preserved fossils, and many scientists say bird-like dinosaurs appear too late in the fossil record to be the true ancestors of birds.

Another surprise, for you, I'm afraid:
Spectacular feathered dinosaurs discovered in the last decade or so show clearly how a small group of theropod dinosaurs gave rise to the first birds, but these specimens are almost exclusively Cretaceous in origin, at least 20 million years younger than Archaeopteryx. Feathered dinosaurs pre-dating Archaeopteryx have remained elusive, largely because the Jurassic theropod fossil record is so poor.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17855-feathered-dinosaur-older-than-earliest-bird.html

In other words, tough luck.

I wouldn't have put it that way, but yes, you've had another bit of tough luck. One of the big mistakes creationists make is assuming what we don't know, will support creationism. As you see, more recent information puts an end to that bit of speculation.

Barbarian observes:
More likely, they used them they way ostriches and other flightless birds do; as means of maneuvering on the ground, or to make longer jumps or land more softly.

Same motions as flight. Which is a pretty good clue in itself.

Since these things are flightless, then they have no part to play in this discussion.

As you see, the motions and structure used by bird for flight were already present and being used for other purposes before there were birds.

Since we are discussing the origin of flight, flightless birds are an irrelevance

Barbarian chuckles
And now you know better.

That is pure nonsense, and you know it.

It's that "E" word you don't like, again.

Why did they 'evolve' feathers? Answer so they could fly, presumably.

Wrong. The primary use of feathers in birds is for warmth and display. Many of them can also fly, but that's not the first use. Dinosaurs had feathers long before any of them could fly.

Not for warmth, by any means - because a. they are cold-blooded anyway,

Barbarian observes:
Turns out that the theropods were warm-blooded.

You are again in very dangerous waters.

The biochemistry and physiology of warm and cold blooded animals is quite different.

Show us that. There are, after all, facultatively warm-blooded creatures that shift back and forth between the two modes. There are warm-blooded fish, which seem to be pretty much like other fish in everything else.

Would you like to know how we know the small theropods were warm-blooded?

Assuming that the ancestors of the theropods were cold-blooded reptiles, then there is no amount of ‘mutations and natural selection’ that could change cold to warm.

Show us that. Sounds interesting.

Since the internal mechanisms of extinct creatures are unknowable, most discussion focuses on homeothermy and tachymetabolism.

Warm-blooded animals have Haversian canals in their bones, indicating a high metabolic rate. And...

Dinosaurs had them. It is possible, BTW, to produce Haversian canals in ectothems, by forcing them to output a very high amount of work. In such cases, they heat up like endotherms.
http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_origins/carbbones/dinobone.html

and b. down feathers (the insulating type) are nothing at all like flight feathers.

Turns out they are. Would you like to see the evidence for that?

Surprise. They are structurally, biochemically, and anatomically quite similar.

Flight feathers are just elaborations of things already there in insulating feathers.

Barbarian chuckles:
As you know, several things you presented as "powering instinct" turned out to be merely chemical reactions. So that's out.

No, sorry.

Yes. As you learned phototropism and the interaction of sperm and eggs, both of which you argued to be by instinct, turned out to be chemically mediated.

You were shown that your chronic inability to distinguish between ‘how’ and ‘why’ is a major impairment to your ability to discuss any of these subjects properly.

I did show you the differnce between efficient and final causes. Did you forget, again?

Barbarian observes:
As you should know, all of these things were already possessed by dinosaurs.

What tosh.

It's demonstrably true. You already learned that the avian lung, feathers, and much more evolved first in dinosaurs.

Free, I am going to become quite abusive if this man doesn’t stop with this idiotic ‘you learned’ business. He is persisting in this debating tactic of deliberate condescension, and I ask you once again to say something quite fierce about it, or I’ll be compelled to take the law into my own hands.

I showed you those facts several times. No point in denying that you learned about it.

In any case the avian lung alone stops this evolutionary nonsense in its tracks. No amount of wishful thinking can change a two-way respiratory system into a one way system.

Again, you were shown that the avian system:
1. existed first in dinosaurs
2. is merely an increase in a form of respiration already present in other vertebrates.

If theropod dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds, one might expect to find evidence of an avian-type lung in such dinosaurs.

Carnivorous Dinosaur With Bird-Like Lungs Discovered
A 33-foot long, carnivorous dinosaur that lived 85 million years ago had a breathing system similar to that used by modern birds, and researchers say the finding is further evidence of the evolutionary link between dinosaurs and birds. A fossil found in a riverbank in Argentina shows evidence of efficient air sacs that pumped air into the dinosaur’s lungs.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/09/30/elephant-sized-dinosaur-had-bird-like-lungs/


Barbarian observes:
flying was an elaboration of what the organism had been already doing. Flight uses the same stuff that cursorial feathered dinosaurs had been using for a long time.

You're claiming that flying is merely an extension of walking, jumping and running.

No. The motions of flying are, however.

And that proves what?

The anatomical and behavioral basis for flight was present long before birds flew.

The motions of salamanders walking are the same as those of fish swimming. But only fish with limbs could use that motion to walk.

Irrelevant.

It shows what you've been shown so many times before; evolution doesn't make things de novo. It merely modifies existing things.

But maybe you should try running to the edge of a high cliff and jumping off. The faster you hit the ground while waving your forelimbs laterally up and down, the quicker your wings will evolve.

As you learned, that's not how it happened. You're confused by your assumptions.

 

[Asyncritus]

By definition, they are reptiles. Aminiotes with multiple bones in their lower jaws. They just have a few transitional features.

Mistake. I don't know where you get that definition, but:

A reptile is any cold blooded, scaly animal that (generally) produce their young in the form of an egg. The term reptile comes from the Latin word repere, which means "to creep".

Living reptiles can be distinguished from other tetrapods in that they are cold-blooded as well as bearing scutes or scales.

Although they have scutes on their feet and lay eggs, birds have historically been excluded from the reptiles, in part because they are warm-blooded.

etc etc. They clearlyknow more about this than you do, so...

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_definition_of_a_reptile#ixzz1yARh3HsC

Wrong. The evidence shows that wings were first used for maneuvering during running.

There is, and can be no such evidence. Somebody's been deluding you.

You've just been blindsided by the evidence again.

No, you have - by the lack of it.

As you just learned, the instincts were already there.

And where did they come from?

But the shoulder joints of those running dinosaurs were fine for flying...

When describing specimens originally referred to the distinct species Cryptovolans pauli, paleontologist Stephen Czerkas argued that Microraptor may have been able to fly better than Archaeopteryx, noting the fused sternum and asymmetrical feathers of Microraptor, as well as features of the shoulder girdle that indicate flying ability closer to modern birds than to Archaeopteryx.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microraptor

Tripe. What features?

I can see you weren't expecting this.

No. I was expecting some sense.

Indeed. He used mutation and natural selection.

Question begging again, I see.

Where did you get this monkey suit?

Xing Xu and his colleagues at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing said that their examination of Xiaotingia, in comparison with more recognizably bird skeletons from the same period as well as the 150-million-year-old Archaeopteryx, showed that the new fossils fell short of a place in the avian family. Several of its anatomical traits, like the long and robust forelimbs once thought to be diagnostic of birds, were actually common to a group of dinosaurs known as deinonychosaurs.

We still haven't heard from you about the origin of the flight instincts. It's no use saying they MUST HAVE existed - if they did, then where did they come from, and how did they enter the genome are yourr 2 besetting questions.

Another surprise, for you, I'm afraid:
Spectacular feathered dinosaurs discovered in the last decade or so show clearly how a small group of theropod dinosaurs gave rise to the first birds, but these specimens are almost exclusively Cretaceous in origin, at least 20 million years younger than Archaeopteryx. Feathered dinosaurs pre-dating Archaeopteryx have remained elusive, largely because the Jurassic theropod fossil record is so poor.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17855-feathered-dinosaur-older-than-earliest-bird.html

I'm not in the slightest bit surprised. There is no evidence whatsoever that these crearures flew - and if they did, where did the flight instinct come from?

I wouldn't have put it that way, but yes, you've had another bit of tough luck. One of the big mistakes creationists make is assuming what we don't know, will support creationism. As you see, more recent information puts an end to that bit of speculation.

I'm afraid it doesn't. These critters ,probably forgeries, I wouldn't be surprised, do not in any way affect my case. There is no discernible answer to the 2 GREAT QUESTIONS.

At least, I haven't seen one, and you are a very poor advocate for the defence, in being completely unable to answer the 2 very simple questions.

Barbarian observes:
More likely, they used them they way ostriches and other flightless birds do; as means of maneuvering on the ground, or to make longer jumps or land more softly.

None of which is flight - and another question now arises - where did they get their running and jumping instincts from?

Same motions as flight. Which is a pretty good clue in itself.

You and your descendants can wave your forelimbs in the air till the cows come home, and you will never evolve a feather, a wing, or be able to fly.

Why should you supose a reptile had more brain power than you do? Well...

As you see, the motions and structure used by bird for flight were already present and being used for other purposes before there were birds.

No, I don't see that Flying is an advanced skill, which no reptile could possess.

But another interesting question appears.

Humming birds do not fly with their arms as all other birde do. They fly with their HANDS, the rest of the arm structure being INSIDE the body.

Now you are already struggling with getting a reptile airborne using the whole of the forelimb structure.

Get the humming bird airborne, using its hands - like the bats.

Hummingbird wings are affectionately called “hands” because the wing bone structure is all hand bone.12 The elbow and wrist joints of hummingbirds are rigid and so the wing does not bend or fold in the middle but remains straight out from the body in flight.10

It's amazing how a little bird can destroy such a large theory. Facts, you see.

There are researchers who believe that hummingbirds did not evolve from other birds (swifts) but developed their own bodies for specialized flight. These scientists have created a separate order just for hummingbirds called “Trochiliformes,” which recognizes the hummingbird as the highest evolution of all the non perching birds.8

Ha ha haaaa! They developed their own bodies, you see! Quite some brain power in those little heads, isn't there! More than in some places I can think of.

They fly forward, upward, downward, upside down, AND IN REVERSE! Where do you suggest such behaviour came from? How did those instincts arise, and how did they enter the genome? Must have been one hell of a reptile ancestor!

They come from nowhere: these most advanced fliers in the bird kingdom. So that's the end of this birds evolved from reptiles, nonsense.

Which reptile do you propose as the most likely candidate for H-B ancestry? Have a guess - that's all they ever do. You might as well join them. Again.

And now you should know better. Too much to hope for, I know, but one can always hope.

You couldn't meet the challenge of the origin of the bats, who also fly with their hands, and echolocate. Now try this one for size.

Assuming that the ancestors of the theropods were cold-blooded reptiles, then there is no amount of ‘mutations and natural selection’ that could change cold to warm.

Show us that. Sounds interesting.

You're proposing the theory. Defend it.

Wrong. The primary use of feathers in birds is for warmth and display. Many of them can also fly, but that's not the first use. Dinosaurs had feathers long before any of them could fly.

None of them could ever fly. As I keep pointing out, there are no flight instincts available, and some joker's idea (in a P-A--P---E--RRRR!) that the shoulder joints could support the flying movement of the wing doesn't make it so.

Your problem (another one) is that you can't distinguish between fact and speculation, but think they are both identical. I have bad news for you. They're not. You really ought to use some discrimination here.

Isn't it possible for you to see that this guy is indulging in wishful thinking. So are you for that matter- and both of you do so because of your desire to establish the untruth.

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

[Asyncritus]

Barbarian observes:
Turns out that the theropods were warm-blooded.

I've shown you that that is an indeterminable point. You have no proof, apart from the wish.

Show us that. There are, after all, facultatively warm-blooded creatures that shift back and forth between the two modes. There are warm-blooded fish, which seem to be pretty much like other fish in everything else.

Would you like to know how we know the small theropods were warm-blooded?

Are you referring to the tuna shark and the couple others that can do this? You now have 2 things to explain. How did these obtain the power to be either warm or cold-blooded?

You're not saying that the birds evolved from these, are you?

Assuming that the ancestors of the theropods were cold-blooded reptiles, then there is no amount of ‘mutations and natural selection’ that could change cold to warm. Show us that. Sounds interesting.

Show us that. Sounds interesting.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_n2637_v126/ai_n27537525/
Paleontologists at Oregon State University, Corvallis, have discovered evidence that theropod--meat-eating--dinosaurs were cold-blooded and that the first birds probably did not, as long has been believed, evolve from known dinosaurs.

The conclusions largely are based on examination of lung structure and ventilation in modern mammals, birds, and reptiles, which were used as models to understand similar functions in dinosaurs and prehistoric birds.

"Our analysis suggests that it was a physiological impossibility for the lungs of birds to have evolved from the lungs of the theropod dinosaurs, as has been the conventional wisdom for decades," indicates professor of zoology John Ruben, an expert on dinosaur and avian evolution. "For this to have happened, the lungs of such dinosaurs could not have functioned in any normal way. Such an animal probably wouldn't have been active enough to even catch its own food, and there isn't much evolutionary or survival value to that."

This suggests birds did not evolve from known dinosaurs, but does not provide solid conclusions about where they did come from. It is possible that some pre-dinosaurian reptile or early dinosaur that predated the known dinosaurs may have been the ancestor of birds.

Asy:You know - once upon a time, anything happened...

In recent years, Ruben and graduate students Nicholas Geist and Terry Jones have done studies on dinosaur evolution and metabolism that provided some of the first concrete evidence about the physiology of these ancient reptiles.

CAT scans of dinosaur nasal structure clearly suggested that dinosaurs were not warm-blooded, since they lacked the nasal turbinates that warm-blooded animals use to prevent excess heat and water loss white breathing.


In the latest study, they looked at lungs. Living reptiles have septate lungs that are like a pair of flabby, compartmentalized air sacs, capable of supporting relatively low rates of oxygen consumption.

Warm-blooded mammals and birds, however, need about 10 times more oxygen than cold-blooded reptiles and have evolved two different types of "high performance" lung structures.

Mammals have efficient alveolar lungs with millions of air sacs clustered like tiny grapes, while birds have greatly modified septate lungs that allow for high rates of gas exchange and activity levels. A specialized "hinged" rib structure and large sternum are required to ventilate the lungs of modern birds.

No dinosaur or early bird had this peculiar rib and sternum arrangement, the scientists note.

This tells them that dinosaurs could not have had modern, bird-like lungs capable of maintaining the activity typical of warm-blooded animals.

Dinosaur lungs would have to have been more conventionally reptilian, probably similar to crocodile lungs.

[flying crocodiles, yet!]

The evidence that theropod dinosaurs possessed crocodile-like lungs is reinforced by skeletal analysis suggestive of a liver-diaphragm lung ventilation mechanism, Crocodiles have a non-muscular diaphragm, powered by muscles which attach to the liver and the pubic bones of the hip. It pulls the large liver backwards to inflate the lungs, and is associated with a distinctive hip structure. "

The theropod dinosaurs, which were the supposed ancestors of the birds, included such prominent species as the Tyrannosaurus rex and Velociraptor," Jones points out. "In them, we see a marked similarity between the hip structure of theropod dinosaurs and crocodiles."

So you ever seen a crocodile running along the ground trying to jump, leap or fly? Hmmm? Sounds like compost heap material to me, but...
[FONT=&quot]

Warm-blooded animals have Haversian canals in their bones, indicating a high metabolic rate. And...

Dinosaurs had them. It is possible, BTW, to produce Haversian canals in ectothems, by forcing them to output a very high amount of work. In such cases, they heat up like endotherms.

http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_origins/carbbones/dinobone.html

As you've now been shown, that is an outright fabrication.


[/FONT]

 

[Asyncritus]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Turns out they are. Would you like to see the evidence for that?

Surprise. They are structurally, biochemically, and anatomically quite similar.

Snigger.

You've got to be joking, blind or something else. Just look at those pictures above and tell me that they are 'quite similar'!
This is good for a laugh if nothing else - and I hope the readers are noting just how foolish your whole case really is!

Flight feathers are just elaborations of things already there in insulating feathers.

Oh yeah. Of course, of course. Any fairies at the bottom of your garden then?

Barbarian chuckles:
As you know, several things you presented as "powering instinct" turned out to be merely chemical reactions. So that's out.

You keep making this stupid statement. You know its false, fake, and foolish. Why not give it up and learn the difference between 'how' and 'why'? Might do you some good, sometime.

Yes. As you learned phototropism and the interaction of sperm and eggs, both of which you argued to be by instinct, turned out to be chemically mediated.

You keep making this stupid statement. You know its false, fake, and foolish. Why not give it up and learn the difference between 'how' and 'why'? Might do you some good, sometime.

I did show you the differnce between efficient and final causes. Did you forget, again?

What are you blathering about now?

Barbarian observes:
As you should know, all of these things were already possessed by dinosaurs.

Heh heh heh!

It's demonstrably true. You already learned that the avian lung, feathers, and much more evolved first in dinosaurs.

See above article, showing that this is nonsense.

Again, you were shown that the avian system:

1. existed first in dinosaurs
2. is merely an increase in a form of respiration already present in other vertebrates.

Sure, sure I was. Seen those fairies recently?


[/FONT]