Flight Evolution in Birds

[Jose Fly]

Yes, I would love to have a better understanding of how lots of animals came to be. But not everything can be “answered” by the scientific method.

The question is whether the origin of birds is something that can be answered by science.

You can tell me more about the “other means” you mentioned.

I don't have anything in mind. I'm asking you, if you think we can't answer the question via science, what other means do you think can answer it? Or maybe you think it's an unanswerable question?

Scientific method is useful for some things, and best so when the subject of study can be critically tested - - taken into the laboratory, tested, repeated. Unfortunately, when we cannot apply those scientific means, things which occurred supposed eons ago have to be left to conjecture.

That seems to me like you're saying that the question at hand (origin of birds) is not answerable by science. Is that correct?

 

[Crossboard]

The question is whether the origin of birds is something that can be answered by science.


I don't have anything in mind. I'm asking you, if you think we can't answer the question via science, what other means do you think can answer it? Or maybe you think it's an unanswerable question?


That seems to me like you're saying that the question at hand (origin of birds) is not answerable by science. Is that correct?

The origin of birds is not answerable by scientific method. It cannot be because involves something that (supposedly) happened long ago, and so it does not qualify for something to be proved or disproved scientifically. It’s being continually studied of course, but it’s obviously still under debate. All we can do is speculate.

It goes without saying... most today subscribe to the general idea of bird evolution and a minority rejects it, myself included in that minority. I personally see it as implausible.

What exactly do you mean by “answerable by science?”

 

[Jose Fly]

The origin of birds is not answerable by scientific method. It cannot be because involves something that (supposedly) happened long ago, and so it does not qualify for something to be proved or disproved scientifically. It’s being continually studied of course, but it’s obviously still under debate. All we can do is speculate.

It goes without saying... most today subscribe to the general idea of bird evolution and a minority rejects it, myself included in that minority. I personally see it as implausible.

Thanks for answering. So the second part to the question I asked is whether you see the origin of birds as answerable by some other means. Do you? Or do you think it's an unanswerable question overall?

What exactly do you mean by “answerable by science?”

Whether or not science can tell us how birds came to exist.

 

[ChristineM]

Well, one article pointed to mentions that the ancestral neotheropod weighed about 200 kg and that there were at least 12 stepwise decreases in size to the early birds.

So, the obvious question is what drove the decrease in size for the lineage leading to birds? Once they started going into trees, I can see why smaller size would be selected, but it isn't clear what was going on prior to that.

Any ideas?

Possibly food shortages. A moden comparison is the pygmy 3 toed sloth which in just 9000 years since rising sea levels cut them off from the mainland leaving them on a food scarce island has evolved to be slower and more placid than their ancestors and half the size

 

[Crossboard]

Thanks for answering. So the second part to the question I asked is whether you see the origin of birds as answerable by some other means. Do you? Or do you think it's an unanswerable question overall?


Whether or not science can tell us how birds came to exist.

Well, since I reject the evolutionary slant as a plausible explanation

Thanks for answering. So the second part to the question I asked is whether you see the origin of birds as answerable by some other means. Do you? Or do you think it's an unanswerable question overall?


Whether or not science can tell us how birds came to exist.

Well, since I reject the evolutionary slant, that leaves me with the creation view, which I think offers the plausible explanation - - for the intricacies of bird flight, and more.
(By the way, I personally consider the “theistic evolutionist” view as uncommitted to either camp; I don’t even want to call it a viable (third) alternative.)

So, to answer your question.. Do I see the “origin of birds” question as answerable by THIS other means? Not to the masses, for a certainty!

And then, to try my best to cover your various question as completely as I can..

Do I think the “origin of birds” question is an UNanswerable question overall? In it’s strictest sense, yes. Even my own creationist position is one wherein I cannot demand that it “proves” to me it’s reality - - not now.

Regardless of which side of the argument we take, a look into “origins” (and things related) can only be evaluated through our best capacity to reason it out.

Science will always be with us as long as the human brain is around to keep it alive, but science is ever-changing; it will also continue to mold itself to the data. It always has.
— love the chat, gotta go!

 

[Jose Fly]

Well, since I reject the evolutionary slant, that leaves me with the creation view, which I think offers the plausible explanation - - for the intricacies of bird flight, and more.
(By the way, I personally consider the “theistic evolutionist” view as uncommitted to either camp; I don’t even want to call it a viable (third) alternative.)

So, to answer your question.. Do I see the “origin of birds” question as answerable by THIS other means? Not to the masses, for a certainty!

I'm not sure what you mean by "to the masses". Do you mean that creationism's attempt to answer the question of how birds came to be will not be acceptable to the majority of people?

And then, to try my best to cover your various question as completely as I can..

Much appreciated.

Do I think the “origin of birds” question is an UNanswerable question overall? In it’s strictest sense, yes. Even my own creationist position is one wherein I cannot demand that it “proves” to me it’s reality - - not now.

If you believe the question (origin of birds) is unanswerable by any means, that leads me to wonder about a couple of things. First, what then do you think of the scientists who are working on answering the question? Are they deluded? Do they not understand science as well as you? Are they wasting their time? Should they stop their work and go do something else?

Second, you suggested earlier that the reason the question is unanswerable is because it took place a long time ago. Do you believe that science cannot investigate anything from the past? Or is there a point in time beyond which they can't investigate? (As in, can they investigate events from 100 years ago? 1,000? 1 million?)

Regardless of which side of the argument we take, a look into “origins” (and things related) can only be evaluated through our best capacity to reason it out.

And what do you think constitutes "our best capacity to reason it out"?

 

[Crossboard]

I'm not sure what you mean by "to the masses". Do you mean that creationism's attempt to answer the question of how birds came to be will not be acceptable to the majority of people?

Yes, that’s what I was saying. Most people (the masses, in my wording) adhere to evolution; they don’t accept the idea that birds were created with flying ability intact.

 

[Crossboard]

Do you believe that science cannot investigate anything from the past?

Not at all. I only commented on the time frame of the supposed evolution of birds.

 

[sayak83]

Not at all. I only commented on the time frame of the supposed evolution of birds.

I believe that you are mistaken about the inability of science to investigate the past. Firstly the evolutionary processes can be observed and tested in the lab TODAY. Secondly, from these observations, we can see what kind of evidence from the past counts as evidence for evolution happening in the past. This is similar to forensic science used in criminology.

 

[Crossboard]

And what do you think constitutes "our best capacity to reason it out"?

Regarding how birds came to be... I think it’s good to try to visualize the scenario which had to occur those many years ago, when that non-flying animal produced the infinitesimal beginnings of eventual flight. This is what I mean by “reasoning it out.”

If it did occur, then it ought to make sense. But I don’t see it as logical. I personally cannot visualize the “wing growth” process as plausible - - from no wings in existence at X point in time, to fully functioning birds later on. Yes, I know that it’s accepted by the science of today, but I still have to remain skeptical of the evolutionary approach.

In my mind, there are too many illogical things that need to be trusted in order for it to be seen as an actual event.

 

[Crossboard]

Firstly the evolutionary processes can be observed and tested in the lab TODAY.

When it takes, say, a million generations for a new, differently functioning animal to become established, what sort of evolution are you talking about being observed in the lab today?

 

[sayak83]

Regarding how birds came to be... I think it’s good to try to visualize the scenario which had to occur those many years ago, when that non-flying animal produced the infinitesimal beginnings of eventual flight. This is what I mean by “reasoning it out.”

If it did occur, then it ought to make sense. But I don’t see it as logical. I personally cannot visualize the “wing growth” process as plausible - - from no wings in existence at X point in time, to fully functioning birds later on. Yes, I know that it’s accepted by the science of today, but I still have to remain skeptical of the evolutionary approach.

In my mind, there are too many illogical things that need to be trusted in order for it to be seen as an actual event.

Why would truth be limited to what you can visualize? Many people found it implausible that a thing as massive as earth is floating in empty space or is moving at thousands of miles per hour through this empty space. Others would find it implausible that things as big and heavy as an aircraft can fly. But they do. The only thing that matters is the evidence that supports a state of affairs, regardless of what is found plausible or not.

 

[sayak83]

When it takes, say, a million generations for a new, differently functioning animal to become established, what sort of evolution are you talking about being observed in the lab today?

Smaller creatures like bacteria, amoeba or a fruitfly can go through thousands and thousands of generations within a few days to a few years.This makes the generalized processes behind evolution tractable in a lab. It's a typical situation in any lab experiment. For example one can't study the Dynamics of how a spacecraft will behave in space or in entry and landing in Mars, say. Then we create smaller prototypes and recreate some of the conditions of space or Mars in evacuated chambers, and see how the small model works. Fortunately for us, nature has created many organisms that are fast breeding, and can be studied in labs to understand the general evolutionary processes that can be used to understand what happened over the enormous eons of past epochs of earth.

For bird evolution, the evidence would be quite simple.

1)Birds have a series of unique anatomical features that no other living creature today possess.

2)If birds are descended from other forms, like dinosaurs, then we will discover dinosaurs that have some of these features as well.

3)Just before and immediately after the first occurrence of birds in the fossil record, we will also find dinosaurs that share many of the features that are today unique to birds.These will appear to be intermediate forms between birds and dinosaurs.

These are the predictions regarding what kind of fossils will be found in the specific period of history when birds first appeared on Earth.

If these predictions are found to be supported by discoveries, then the hypothesis that birds evolved from dinosaurs is validated.

Today there are many such fossil discoveries that have validated this hypothesis.

 

[Sapiens]

Smaller creatures like bacteria, amoeba or a fruitfly can go through thousands and thousands of generations within a few days to a few years.This makes the generalized processes behind evolution tractable in a lab. It's a typical situation in any lab experiment. For example one can't study the Dynamics of how a spacecraft will behave in space or in entry and landing in Mars, say. Then we create smaller prototypes and recreate some of the conditions of space or Mars in evacuated chambers, and see how the small model works. Fortunately for us, nature has created many organisms that are fast breeding, and can be studied in labs to understand the general evolutionary processes that can be used to understand what happened over the enormous eons of past epochs of earth.

For bird evolution, the evidence would be quite simple.

1)Birds have a series of unique anatomical features that no other living creature today possess.

2)If birds are descended from other forms, like dinosaurs, then we will discover dinosaurs that have some of these features as well.

3)Just before and immediately after the first occurrence of birds in the fossil record, we will also find dinosaurs that share many of the features that are today unique to birds.These will appear to be intermediate forms between birds and dinosaurs.

These are the predictions regarding what kind of fossils will be found in the specific period of history when birds first appeared on Earth.

If these predictions are found to be supported by discoveries, then the hypothesis that birds evolved from dinosaurs is validated.

Today there are many such fossil discoveries that have validated this hypothesis.

Or ... just look at the genomic data. Rather an open and shut case.

 

[sayak83]

Or ... just look at the genomic data. Rather an open and shut case.

We don't have genomic data of dinosaurs.

 

[Sapiens]

We don't have genomic data of dinosaurs.

Actually ... we do. Birds are dinosaurs. This is indicated by their osteology and their genome. We have not only the differential comparison with reptiles, we also have the direct comparison of peptides with both Tyrannosaur and Hadrosaur material.

 

[sayak83]

When it takes, say, a million generations for a new, differently functioning animal to become established, what sort of evolution are you talking about being observed in the lab today?

This video below, a layman friendly talk, discusses the evidence that validate the hypothesis that birds evolved from flightless dinosaurs. Of particular interest is the section on feather evolution that starts at 20 minutes and provides a classic example of how evolution can predict features that are later vindicated by fossil discoveries.

 

[Jose Fly]

Yes, that’s what I was saying. Most people (the masses, in my wording) adhere to evolution; they don’t accept the idea that birds were created with flying ability intact.

Thanks for clarifying.

Not at all. I only commented on the time frame of the supposed evolution of birds.

Is there a time beyond which you believe science is unable to figure things out? If so, what is that time? 100 years? 1,000 years? 1 million years?

Regarding how birds came to be... I think it’s good to try to visualize the scenario which had to occur those many years ago, when that non-flying animal produced the infinitesimal beginnings of eventual flight. This is what I mean by “reasoning it out.”

If it did occur, then it ought to make sense. But I don’t see it as logical. I personally cannot visualize the “wing growth” process as plausible - - from no wings in existence at X point in time, to fully functioning birds later on. Yes, I know that it’s accepted by the science of today, but I still have to remain skeptical of the evolutionary approach.

In my mind, there are too many illogical things that need to be trusted in order for it to be seen as an actual event.

And that kind of brings me back to a question I asked and I think you must have missed....what then do you think of the scientists who are researching this question? Given that you believe the question isn't even answerable via science, do you believe they're deluded? Do they not understand science as well as you? Are they wasting their time? Should they stop their work and go do something else?

Or have you considered the possibility that the problem isn't with the science, but rather is with your understanding of it?

 

[Crossboard]

Why would truth be limited to what you can visualize?

I’m not suggesting that our search for truth in this matter needs to be limited to what we can visualize. I’m only suggesting that it could and should be done.

 

[Crossboard]

Many people found it implausible that a thing as massive as earth is floating in empty space or is moving at thousands of miles per hour through this empty space. Others would find it implausible that things as big and heavy as an aircraft can fly. But they do. The only thing that matters is the evidence that supports a state of affairs, regardless of what is found plausible or not.

Good points... agreed