Flight Evolution in Birds

[Crossboard]

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.

Sure, fast-breeding organisms exist, but we are not watching evolution occur. It’s a leap to compare this lab testing to speculated animal evolution.

Agreed, we can built models, to predict how similar but larger constructs will behave. That ‘s a good point in and of itself, but not sure if it relates so directly to evolution.

 

[Crossboard]

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.

This fellow does a great job! He knows how to present his info. Interesting to watch! The animation visual of the growth of the feather was very cool, and I’m sure the facts are right on track. No reason to doubt it at all.

But that, along with the amazing slo-mo videos of the wing action of the little birds scream out “design” in my mind. And when I imagine one of these little birds half evolved, I see those wings NOT doing what we witness in that video. For thousands upon thousands of generations, bird after bird failed in these amazing mechanics - - and still survived and proliferated? These are extreme difficulties in my mind, things that I cannot leap over and land in the area of acceptance.

 

[sayak83]

This fellow does a great job! He knows how to present his info. Interesting to watch! The animation visual of the growth of the feather was very cool, and I’m sure the facts are right on track. No reason to doubt it at all.

But that, along with the amazing slo-mo videos of the wing action of the little birds scream out “design” in my mind. And when I imagine one of these little birds half evolved, I see those wings NOT doing what we witness in that video. For thousands upon thousands of generations, bird after bird failed in these amazing mechanics - - and still survived and proliferated? These are extreme difficulties in my mind, things that I cannot leap over and land in the area of acceptance.

This is not a very fact based objection. For example, based on the evolutionary model of feather evolution, the scientists predicted the order in which various types of feathers would be observed in bird precursors. We have been fortunate that, subsequently, many feathered dinosaur fossils with feather imprints were discovered. And in these we see the progression of feather evolution with increasing array of sophistication in feather structures. And this array matches with evolutionary model predictions. Inability to imagine how these early flighted dinosaur-bird intermediate species lived their lives, is not a very good argument, as fossils show they clearly lived and flourished.

Also you are imagining modern birds with poor quality feathers. Instead you should imagine agile carnivorous monkeys with feathers and proto-wings to help fly/glide for short spaces between trees and branches.

Micro-raptor.

 

[Crossboard]

Thanks for clarifying.


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?

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?

I’m not sure that if I chose a specific number, I would be giving you a satisfactory response. This overall section of our discussion is creeping into a muddy area, and I’m not sure if it’s getting us anywhere

Should I say 6500 years, because I subscribe to the young earth view? (Of course, that’s way off topic, ain’t it.)

The word “deluded” is not one I would toss out there - - sounds a little too personal and biting, in my opinion.

Scientists are most definitely smarter than me! I’m clueless as to how they go about their work.

But there are world views out there which have major influences on how people draw conclusions about theories and such. I do feel that some efforts are wasted. And I trust you’ll understand that I make this statement based upon my own world view. (It simply is what it is... a different perspective upon this subject).

No, of course they should not stop what they’re doing and go do something else. There are just as capable and brilliant scientists in the workforce who hold a theist/design/creationist worldview, and they should neither stop their work. I’d assume you would agree..

 

[Crossboard]

This is not a very fact based objection. For example, based on the evolutionary model of feather evolution, the scientists predicted the order in which various types of feathers would be observed in bird precursors. We have been fortunate that, subsequently, many feathered dinosaur fossils with feather imprints were discovered. And in these we see the progression of feather evolution with increasing array of sophistication in feather structures. And this array matches with evolutionary model predictions. Inability to imagine how these early flighted dinosaur-bird intermediate species lived their lives, is not a very good argument, as fossils show they clearly lived and flourished.

Also you are imagining modern birds with poor quality feathers. Instead you should imagine agile carnivorous monkeys with feathers and proto-wings to help fly/glide for short spaces between trees and branches.

Micro-raptor.

Thanks for the follow up. When I have some more time, I’d like to start with a fresh thought, to look at a scenario that I think could interest us both.. if you’d like.

 

[sayak83]

Thanks for the follow up. When I have some more time, I’d like to start with a fresh thought, to look at a scenario that I think could interest us both.. if you’d like.

Ok.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

But that, along with the amazing slo-mo videos of the wing action of the little birds scream out “design” in my mind. And when I imagine one of these little birds half evolved, I see those wings NOT doing what we witness in that video. For thousands upon thousands of generations, bird after bird failed in these amazing mechanics - - and still survived and proliferated? These are extreme difficulties in my mind, things that I cannot leap over and land in the area of acceptance.

Part of the problem is that you're seeing flight as a kind of "end goal" of the process, and imagining a series of bird (or bird-like) animals with "half evolved" wings leading up to the final "finished" species with fully functioning wings, but this is not really how evolution works.

First, I find it helpful to always keep in mind that function pre-exists form. In other words, remember that the function of wings is improved mobility, and so imagine that what evolution is "aiming for" isn't specifically flight but just improved mobility. In this sense, there is nothing that our (or any animals) body does that the earliest eukaryotes weren't doing - they've all just become more specialized. The human digestive and respiratory systems are just highly specialized forms of absorbing energy from our surroundings. Avian wings are just highly specialized forms of motion. If we start at a cell and all its various, very simple and basic functions and start with the question "how can specific function X be improved upon or specialized for this specific situation", difficulties in imagining the transition from one form to another begin to melt away.

Secondly, there is really no such thing as a "half wing" - or even, strictly speaking, a "half formed" anything in evolutionary terms. Keeping in mind the function thing mentioned above, all you need to remember is that all the change needs to provide is some improvement in the particular function. In other words, even if a species evolves wings that still do not allow for flight, it may be that they confer other advantages, such as increased mobility (via gliding). This is something we see in non-flying birds today. A good example to use is the eye, despite the fact that many creationists cite the eye as irreducibly complex. Its evolutionary pathways is actually well understood. Start with the function: detecting sources of energy (in this case, light). A primitive organism may develop a small patch of light-sensitive cells that allow it to detect light. From there, its descendants develop a patch of light-sensitive cells that cup, allowing for detection of the direction of light. Their descendants develop a pinhole that both protects the cells and allows for greater detection. The cup fills with fluid and eventually develops a lens, and you arrive at the human eye. Note how each step was perfectly functional and conferred an advantage over the previous "model", and there was no "half eye" that left the organism without any benefit of detecting light. It starts with a function, and then evolution slowly improves and specializes this function over subsequent generations, with each step being a fully functioning benefit.

Hope this helps!

 

[Jose Fly]

I’m not sure that if I chose a specific number, I would be giving you a satisfactory response. This overall section of our discussion is creeping into a muddy area, and I’m not sure if it’s getting us anywhere

It's been informative for me. I already know what I think on these issues, and I have a decent understanding of the science, but I didn't know much about you or your views. So I appreciate you actually answering my questions.

Should I say 6500 years, because I subscribe to the young earth view? (Of course, that’s way off topic, ain’t it.)

That's actually entirely on-topic! Earlier you seemed to indicate that the reason the origin of birds was unanswerable by science was because it happened in the distant past, but now it seems you see it that way because of your young-earth beliefs.

Could it be that a significant factor in why you think the question is unanswerable is because the current view in science is incompatible with your religious beliefs?

The word “deluded” is not one I would toss out there - - sounds a little too personal and biting, in my opinion.

Scientists are most definitely smarter than me! I’m clueless as to how they go about their work.

But there are world views out there which have major influences on how people draw conclusions about theories and such. I do feel that some efforts are wasted. And I trust you’ll understand that I make this statement based upon my own world view. (It simply is what it is... a different perspective upon this subject).

No, of course they should not stop what they’re doing and go do something else. There are just as capable and brilliant scientists in the workforce who hold a theist/design/creationist worldview, and they should neither stop their work. I’d assume you would agree..

This is interesting. Scientists go about their work and they come to the conclusion that birds originated millions of years ago by evolutionary processes. What does someone like you do with that? Do you just reject it out of hand because your religious beliefs are non-negotiable? Do you examine the science with the mindset that if it's solid enough, you'll possibly change your beliefs?

That's kind of what I'm getting at.....how does someone like you deal with science when it tells you things you believe can't be true?

 

[Crossboard]

It's been informative for me. I already know what I think on these issues, and I have a decent understanding of the science, but I didn't know much about you or your views. So I appreciate you actually answering my questions.


That's actually entirely on-topic! Earlier you seemed to indicate that the reason the origin of birds was unanswerable by science was because it happened in the distant past, but now it seems you see it that way because of your young-earth beliefs.

Could it be that a significant factor in why you think the question is unanswerable is because the current view in science is incompatible with your religious beliefs?


This is interesting. Scientists go about their work and they come to the conclusion that birds originated millions of years ago by evolutionary processes. What does someone like you do with that? Do you just reject it out of hand because your religious beliefs are non-negotiable? Do you examine the science with the mindset that if it's solid enough, you'll possibly change your beliefs?

That's kind of what I'm getting at.....how does someone like you deal with science when it tells you things you believe can't be true?

Sorry to all for my delays.. very busy with stuff.. I wish I was in the position to reply instantaneously, as it appears most of you are able to do. (hey, you folks aren’t getting paid to chat it up, are you?? LOL)

Plus, I receive 3+ replies to each of my 1 comments, so it pretty quickly compounds my job in adequately responding. Anyhow, if it ever appears that I may be putting words into any one of your mouths.. no offense intended. Sometimes I may deem it better to assimilate multiple comments into one generalized response.

With so many different ideas being shot back to me, I’m looking right now at literally a dozen or more different directions to go! Anyhow, I’ll probably just try to take particular paragraphs here and there, and give quick replies. Or... if it strikes me, I may find a thought and expound more thoroughly.

Sorry that this post had no substantive material, and thanks for bearing with me

 

[Jose Fly]

Sorry to all for my delays.. very busy with stuff.. I wish I was in the position to reply instantaneously, as it appears most of you are able to do. (hey, you folks aren’t getting paid to chat it up, are you?? LOL)

Plus, I receive 3+ replies to each of my 1 comments, so it pretty quickly compounds my job in adequately responding. Anyhow, if it ever appears that I may be putting words into any one of your mouths.. no offense intended. Sometimes I may deem it better to assimilate multiple comments into one generalized response.

With so many different ideas being shot back to me, I’m looking right now at literally a dozen or more different directions to go! Anyhow, I’ll probably just try to take particular paragraphs here and there, and give quick replies. Or... if it strikes me, I may find a thought and expound more thoroughly.

Sorry that this post had no substantive material, and thanks for bearing with me

No worries. Trust me, I'm in no hurry here.

The main things I'm interested in are the last two points we've been discussion, i.e.:

Could it be that a significant factor in why you think the question is unanswerable is because the current view in science is incompatible with your religious beliefs?

Scientists go about their work and they come to the conclusion that birds originated millions of years ago by evolutionary processes. What does someone like you do with that? Do you just reject it out of hand because your religious beliefs are non-negotiable? Do you examine the science with the mindset that if it's solid enough, you'll possibly change your beliefs?

That's kind of what I'm getting at.....how does someone like you deal with science when it tells you things you believe can't be true?

 

[Polymath257]

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.

OK, this is one place where we differ. Simply because something happened in the past, even the distant past, isn't enough to think we can have no knowledge about it. The past has left evidence that we can look at now. We can use our knowledge of chemistry, of physics, and of the other sciences to deduce what happened in the past.

In particular, we can find the dates when various stages of bird evolution happened. We can say what sort of environment those early birds lived in as well as a great deal about their anatomy and behavior. We can say what their precursors were and how the environments changed to push those precursors to become the birds we see later and, eventually, today. We can test alternative explanations by considering the fossil record, both of the species themselves and of the environment in which they lived. We can make predictions about what sorts of creatures should have lived at various times and use those predictions to tell us where to look for tests of our ideas.

That is what the scientific method is all about.

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?”

It means using the methods of science: hypothesis, testing, etc, to find answers consistent with all available knowledge. if there are several such, then weighting them according to probabilities.

 

[Crossboard]

Could it be that a significant factor in why you think the question is unanswerable is because the current view in science is incompatible with your religious beliefs?

As I’m sure you presume (and correctly so), my religious belief is tied directly to an acknowledgment of a mind greater than human intellect (i.e. the God of the Bible, and creator of all we see). And while the Bible does state clearly how life came to be, this is not at all a sole reason for my rejection of evolution. I personally have always been just as intrigued by the arguments AGAINST evolution as I am by the arguments FOR special creation.

So, to answer your question (if I may use my own wording)... No, I do not run from the “current view in science” because my religious belief tells me to. I find the current view in science to be incompatible with logic.

What you are calling “the current view in science” should really be more accurately called “the current view of the great majority of scientists.” I think you would agree that “majority” never has and never will be the true gauge of accuracy in anything, and notably in scientific endeavor. Things that were once scientifically accepted were later overturned. Do I think the current majority mindset will shift dramatically any time soon? No, it is very firmly established. But still, this majority view is just as you describe it - - it’s the current view.

 

[Jose Fly]

As I’m sure you presume (and correctly so), my religious belief is tied directly to an acknowledgment of a mind greater than human intellect (i.e. the God of the Bible, and creator of all we see). And while the Bible does state clearly how life came to be, this is not at all a sole reason for my rejection of evolution. I personally have always been just as intrigued by the arguments AGAINST evolution as I am by the arguments FOR special creation.

Do you believe that a person can be an "evolutionist" and be a Christian?

So, to answer your question (if I may use my own wording)... No, I do not run from the “current view in science” because my religious belief tells me to. I find the current view in science to be incompatible with logic.

I'd be curious to hear how you think mainstream scientific conclusions are incompatible with logic.

I'll give you an example of how I see logic supporting an evolutionary history of life on earth. We've been observing, studying, experimenting on, and documenting the behaviors of all sorts of different organisms for well over a century now, and one thing is overwhelmingly clear.....populations evolve....all the time. Every single new trait, ability, genetic sequence, and species we've ever observed to arise has done so via evolutionary means. No matter what population we study for any length of time, it evolves.

So just from a purely logical standpoint, it's entirely reasonable to conclude that the same is true of the past. When we look at the fossil record, we see change over time. We see old species disappear and new ones appear. We see new traits arise. Given the above, logic would seem to dictate that those events are the result of the same processes we observe today. After all, when we see an ash layer between geologic strata, we conclude that it's the result of a volcanic eruption. Why? Because that's what we see produce ash layers today.

The logic seems pretty straight forward.

What you are calling “the current view in science” should really be more accurately called “the current view of the great majority of scientists.” I think you would agree that “majority” never has and never will be the true gauge of accuracy in anything, and notably in scientific endeavor. Things that were once scientifically accepted were later overturned. Do I think the current majority mindset will shift dramatically any time soon? No, it is very firmly established. But still, this majority view is just as you describe it - - it’s the current view.

And many things that were scientifically accepted remain so today and have basically become common knowledge. Unless you can give specific reasons why the mainstream conclusions about the age of the earth and the evolutionary history of its life are likely to be wrong, simply noting that some past conclusions have changed isn't very persuasive.

 

[Crossboard]

Scientists go about their work and they come to the conclusion that birds originated millions of years ago by evolutionary processes. What does someone like you do with that? Do you just reject it out of hand because your religious beliefs are non-negotiable? Do you examine the science with the mindset that if it's solid enough, you'll possibly change your beliefs?

Yes, you’re right.. these scientists do go about their work, but they don’t “come to” their conclusions. Their conclusions are already determined. The work they go about is a continual search for validation of an evolutionary world view and an evolutionary mindset. They are looking for pieces that seem to convincingly fit into the evolutionary mold.

Another poster made this comment:
“We have been fortunate that, subsequently, many feathered dinosaur fossils with feather imprints were discovered. And in these we see the progression of feather evolution with increasing array of sophistication in feather structures.”

When a group of fossils are taken from the earth, evolutionists see it as a foregone conclusion and say, “Look at this... more fossils... Here’s more evidence for evolution.” Folks, this is simply not the case. Evolution-based scientists do not hold a monopoly on the earth’s fossils. In the earth are a plethora of dead animals, some of which represent an animal still living and the rest of which are extinct. But this is all it is - - animals which have been rapidly buried in mud/water and fossilized. It’s not instant evidence for evolution.

For a long time now we have been conditioned to see fossilized animals as pointing directly to evolution. I recall a co-worker from years ago who I had many discussions with about the subject of evolution. I’ll never forget what she asked me during one of our earlier chats.. She asked, “Say, do you even believe that dinosaurs ever existed?” I answered, “Of course I do, we dig their remains out of the earth!” And before our conversation went any further, it was obvious what her question implied: If you believe in dinosaurs, you must believe in evolution. Dinosaurs = Evolution.

In our culture today this is what the average person just accepts, because this is the information that’s constantly fed to us. Today we just tend to think of these extinct animals as holding some obvious linkage to the evolutionary concept. But what is it about an unearthed fossil or skeleton that inherently speaks in support of the idea of gradual evolutionary change? In fact, nothing at all.

So, back to the initial question asked... What does someone like me do with the conclusions drawn? I see it for what it is, a belief system regarding animal origins that has at it’s core a particular world view that I don’t find reasonable.

Do I examine the science with the mindset that if it's solid enough, I’ll possibly change my beliefs? Again, my beliefs are not keeping me from examining anything. I do my fair share reading about evolution - - probably far more than the average person who does not subscribe to evolution. But, no I’m not going to examine anything with a certain “mindset.” And if it’s solid enough?? Yes, I must adhere to it. The question: is the evidence solid enough? I’m not buying into the supposed evidence, and I don’t feel great about just learning enough of the details and accepting it.

 

[Crossboard]

@Crossboard

Skeleton of a modern bird

Dinosaur to bird wrists.

Evolution Of Modern Birds: How Dinosaurs Got Their Wings

Vargas showed how some dinosaurs went from having nine wrist bones to four wrist bones, the number of wrist bones in modern birds.

Aves are birds. Rest are dinosaurs. Maniraptors are feathered dinosaurs.


Also see,
How Dinosaurs Shrank and Became Birds

“A bird didn’t just evolve from a T. rex overnight, but rather the classic features of birds evolved one by one; first bipedal locomotion, then feathers, then a wishbone, then more complex feathers that look like quill-pen feathers, then wings,” Brusatte said. “The end result is a relatively seamless transition between dinosaurs and birds, so much so that you can’t just draw an easy line between these two groups.”

recent research suggests that a few simple change—among them the adoption of a more babylike skull shape into adulthood—likely played essential roles in the final push to bird-hood. Not only are birds much smaller than their dinosaur ancestors, they closely resemble dinosaur embryos.

Like other bird features, diminishing body size likely began long before the birds themselves evolved. A study published in Science last year found that the miniaturization process began much earlier than scientists had expected. Some coelurosaurs started shrinking as far back as 200 million years ago—50 million years before archaeopteryx emerged. At that time, most other dinosaur lineages were growing larger. “Miniaturization is unusual, especially among dinosaurs,” Benton said.

That shrinkage sped up once bird ancestors grew wings and began experimenting with gliding flight. Last year, Benton’s team showed that this dinosaur lineage, known as paraves, was shrinking 160 times faster than other dinosaur lineages were growing. “Other dinosaurs were getting bigger and uglier while this line was quietly getting smaller and smaller,” Benton said. “We believe that marked an event of intense selection going on at that point.”

Birds are effectively baby dinosaurs with some added features.

The first birds were almost identical to the late embryo from velociraptors,” Abzhanov said. “Modern birds became even more babylike and change even less from their embryonic form.” In short, birds resemble tiny, infantile dinosaurs that can reproduce.

This process, known as paedomorphosis, is an efficient evolutionary route. “Rather than coming up with something new, it takes something you already have and extends it,” said Nipam Patel, a developmental biologist at the University of California, Berkeley.

Thanks for this thorough bit of info.
One thing pops into my head.. As we know, birds are very effective and efficient in their flight due to the fact that their bones are much lighter, because they are hollow.

It appears that one of two things had to occur in the supposed evolution to birds:
1) Those bones somehow began to hollow out in certain dinosaurs long before the concept of flight was even a consideration for the animal.
Or..
2) Some animal had already made their way into the trees and was attempting their leaping, or gliding, or what not; and when it somehow became evident to it/them that lighter bone structure was necessary, these animals had the inherent ability to slowly produce offspring which would eventually have the hollow bones which is known today in the skeleton of birds.

Questions:
- Is there consensus as to which of these two scenarios actually occurred?

- Is there overwhelming hard evidence as to which of these two scenarios was reality?

- Which of the two seem more reasonable? And is there common knowledge that places the alternate scenario into the realm of unreasonable?

- Regardless of which scenario occurred... one very first offspring had to have some very, very small change in it’s bone structure; something that had no bearing at all on how that specific animal carried out its natural functions during its life. When this animal grew to adulthood and breeded (and certainly with a mate which did NOT possess this same infinitesimal skeletal change), what was it that guaranteed that its offspring WOULD and DID carry on that special critical trait? Seems much more likely that time and time again, this very meager beginnings of skeletal change would be taken right back to “square one” due to loss of this change in the following generation.

 

[sayak83]

Thanks for this thorough bit of info.
One thing pops into my head.. As we know, birds are very effective and efficient in their flight due to the fact that their bones are much lighter, because they are hollow.

It appears that one of two things had to occur in the supposed evolution to birds:
1) Those bones somehow began to hollow out in certain dinosaurs long before the concept of flight was even a consideration for the animal.
Or..
2) Some animal had already made their way into the trees and was attempting their leaping, or gliding, or what not; and when it somehow became evident to it/them that lighter bone structure was necessary, these animals had the inherent ability to slowly produce offspring which would eventually have the hollow bones which is known today in the skeleton of birds.

Questions:
- Is there consensus as to which of these two scenarios actually occurred?

- Is there overwhelming hard evidence as to which of these two scenarios was reality?

- Which of the two seem more reasonable? And is there common knowledge that places the alternate scenario into the realm of unreasonable?

- Regardless of which scenario occurred... one very first offspring had to have some very, very small change in it’s bone structure; something that had no bearing at all on how that specific animal carried out its natural functions during its life. When this animal grew to adulthood and breeded (and certainly with a mate which did NOT possess this same infinitesimal skeletal change), what was it that guaranteed that its offspring WOULD and DID carry on that special critical trait? Seems much more likely that time and time again, this very meager beginnings of skeletal change would be taken right back to “square one” due to loss of this change in the following generation.

1) is true. Most dinosaur bones are hollow. Helped them to be fast moving even with a large body. We have bone fossils to show this directly. It is a trait that feathered dinosaurs inherited and accentuated over time. But dinosaurs have hollow bones in general.

For any change in a gene in an organism, there is an at least 25% and at most 75% chance that it will be passed on to an offspring. So, for example if a gene X, mutated to form gene x in one parent. Then the offspring can have the following genes,
X-x, X-X, x-x, x-X.

This is Mendel's law of genetics.

Obviously x-x is a fully mutated offspring and X-X is a fully normal offspring. The other two are 50-50. Now, if the mutation confers a survival advantage, the mutated forms are more likely to survive and produce more offsprings when they grow up than the normal ones. Hence the mutant gene slowly increases in frequency in the population and over succeeding generations we see more and more animals having this trait x. For example, hollow bones will make them lighter and run faster, important for successfully catching prey and hence such dinosaurs will be better able to get meat and survive.

 

[Crossboard]

1) is true. Most dinosaur bones are hollow. Helped them to be fast moving even with a large body. We have bone fossils to show this directly. It is a trait that feathered dinosaurs inherited and accentuated over time. But dinosaurs have hollow bones in general.

For any change in a gene in an organism, there is an at least 25% and at most 75% chance that it will be passed on to an offspring. So, for example if a gene X, mutated to form gene x in one parent. Then the offspring can have the following genes,
X-x, X-X, x-x, x-X.

This is Mendel's law of genetics.

Obviously x-x is a fully mutated offspring and X-X is a fully normal offspring. The other two are 50-50. Now, if the mutation confers a survival advantage, the mutated forms are more likely to survive and produce more offsprings when they grow up than the normal ones. Hence the mutant gene slowly increases in frequency in the population and over succeeding generations we see more and more animals having this trait x. For example, hollow bones will make them lighter and run faster, important for successfully catching prey and hence such dinosaurs will be better able to get meat and survive.

Thank you! ...duly noted.
My point of intrigue centers on the comment, “if the mutation confers a survival advantage...”
Will pick up on this later.. Happy day to all.

 

[Jose Fly]

Yes, you’re right.. these scientists do go about their work, but they don’t “come to” their conclusions. Their conclusions are already determined. The work they go about is a continual search for validation of an evolutionary world view and an evolutionary mindset. They are looking for pieces that seem to convincingly fit into the evolutionary mold.

Another poster made this comment:
“We have been fortunate that, subsequently, many feathered dinosaur fossils with feather imprints were discovered. And in these we see the progression of feather evolution with increasing array of sophistication in feather structures.”

When a group of fossils are taken from the earth, evolutionists see it as a foregone conclusion and say, “Look at this... more fossils... Here’s more evidence for evolution.” Folks, this is simply not the case. Evolution-based scientists do not hold a monopoly on the earth’s fossils. In the earth are a plethora of dead animals, some of which represent an animal still living and the rest of which are extinct. But this is all it is - - animals which have been rapidly buried in mud/water and fossilized. It’s not instant evidence for evolution.

For a long time now we have been conditioned to see fossilized animals as pointing directly to evolution. I recall a co-worker from years ago who I had many discussions with about the subject of evolution. I’ll never forget what she asked me during one of our earlier chats.. She asked, “Say, do you even believe that dinosaurs ever existed?” I answered, “Of course I do, we dig their remains out of the earth!” And before our conversation went any further, it was obvious what her question implied: If you believe in dinosaurs, you must believe in evolution. Dinosaurs = Evolution.

In our culture today this is what the average person just accepts, because this is the information that’s constantly fed to us. Today we just tend to think of these extinct animals as holding some obvious linkage to the evolutionary concept. But what is it about an unearthed fossil or skeleton that inherently speaks in support of the idea of gradual evolutionary change? In fact, nothing at all.

So, back to the initial question asked... What does someone like me do with the conclusions drawn? I see it for what it is, a belief system regarding animal origins that has at it’s core a particular world view that I don’t find reasonable.

Do I examine the science with the mindset that if it's solid enough, I’ll possibly change my beliefs? Again, my beliefs are not keeping me from examining anything. I do my fair share reading about evolution - - probably far more than the average person who does not subscribe to evolution. But, no I’m not going to examine anything with a certain “mindset.” And if it’s solid enough?? Yes, I must adhere to it. The question: is the evidence solid enough? I’m not buying into the supposed evidence, and I don’t feel great about just learning enough of the details and accepting it.

So before we continue further, I want to make sure I fully understand where you're coming from.

As far as I can tell, you're saying that there is no evidence at all that populations evolve, so when paleontologists discover fossils, they impose an evolutionary interpretation onto those discoveries even though doing so is completely unjustified.

Is that correct?

 

[Crossboard]

So before we continue further, I want to make sure I fully understand where you're coming from.

As far as I can tell, you're saying that there is no evidence at all that populations evolve, so when paleontologists discover fossils, they impose an evolutionary interpretation onto those discoveries even though doing so is completely unjustified.

Is that correct?

There is evidence that animals can and do change, but not to the extent that new animals result.

Regarding the work of the paleontologist:
Yes, obviously so.. evolutionary-thinking paleontologists often impose an evolutionary interpretation upon the newly discovered finds (at least as far as it would appear that a particular find holds any sort of value).

And, whether or not the evolutionary interpretation is “justified.” To whom are you referring? To evolutionist it’s justified; to the creationist it’s not.

Hope I summing up your query well..

 

[Jose Fly]

There is evidence that animals can and do change, but not to the extent that new animals result.

What do you mean by "new animals"?

Regarding the work of the paleontologist:
Yes, obviously so.. evolutionary-thinking paleontologists often impose an evolutionary interpretation upon the newly discovered finds (at least as far as it would appear that a particular find holds any sort of value).

Given what I explained earlier (CLICK HERE), why do you feel paleontologists are "imposing" an evolutionary interpretation, rather than simply concluding that since new traits, abilities, and species are generated by evolutionary mechanisms today, the same is true of the past?

And, whether or not the evolutionary interpretation is “justified.” To whom are you referring? To evolutionist it’s justified; to the creationist it’s not.

I'm referring to you. You seem to believe that paleontologists are imposing evolution onto their finds, which implies that you believe doing so is not justified.

Hope I summing up your query well..

Yep.